The New York Times is quite clearly so biased in favor of Clinton -- or against Trump -- that it is refusing to report on legitimate and serious negative news about her.

We already had the fact about a month ago that in Clinton's first interview response after the Comey hearing about her mishandling of classified information, she told several lies about it, and the Times refused to report on it.

Now, we have the AP story that demonstrates that of her meetings -- other than meetings that are directly a part of her job, such as with government (including foreign government) officials and staff -- a majority of them were with donors to her charitable foundation.

These are big stories. And the Times simply refuses to report on them at all. You would never know about these important stories if you got all of your news from the Times.

"All the news that's fit to print" is a lie. G+
"Might support life" actually means "probably doesn't support life." In case you were getting your hopes up. G+
"Quid pro cash" is a silly thing to say about what's being revealed about The Clinton Foundation. First, the money comes first. Second, "quid" also means money, in some English dialects. Third, "cash pro quo" sounds better. G+
When Trump is reading a speech, it sounds like he's reading it for the first time. It sounds as if he is surprise by what he's reading. G+
Ryan Lochte lied about a minor offense, and admitted it. Hillary Clinton continues to lie about mishandling Top Secret information, and won't admit it. The NY Times never reported the latter ... G+
I thought Bush should not have gone to Louisiana, and I think Obama should not go to Louisiana. Stay away. Let them do their jobs down there. You might make people feel better, but it won't actually help. G+
The wrestling, judo, taekwondo, and boxing champions should all fight each other. And the winner of that takes on the fencing champion (saber, of course). G+
To me, it is obvious that Trump was not serious when he implied that someone could shoot Hillary. But Trump's explanation makes no sense: he said that he was saying that Second Amendment folks "must organize and get out vote to save our Constitution!"

Here's what Trump actually said:

“Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I'll tell you what: that will be a horrible day.”

So his argument is that there's "nothing you can do" to stop her from picking anti-Second Amendment justices for the Supreme Court once she gets elected ... except maybe organize to get out the vote to stop her. After she's already been elected.

Sorry, Donald, that's idiotic, as is your insistence that "there can be no other interpretation."

I get that you don't want to just admit you said what you did, and then say "I was only kidding." People don't take kindly to the "I was only kidding" defense.

But lying about what you said won't go over very well, either. G+
Clinton does not believe she has an obligation to protect classified information unless it is properly marked. She said that yesterday.

This is important, and it's new, and it's worse than anything we've yet found out about her mishandling of classified information.

She said that if it is not properly marked, there is no reason to suspect the information is classified. This absolutely violates the law's view of her obligations. As Comey said, "even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

It's inconceivable that Clinton would not know a topic so sensitive it is Top Secret would not know the topic is classified.

Her views of her obligations to classified information, as a U.S. government official, are completely out of line with what the law actually expects of her. It's worse than her mishandling of the information, and worse than her lies about mishandling it. You can dismiss those things as carelessness, politics, manipulating the media, and so on.

But this ... this shows she just has no respect for what the law requires of her. At best, she is lying about this too, to save herself ... which means she is willing to diminish the law by encouraging others to accept the disrespect she is selling, in order to protect herself. And that's completely awful, too. G+
I think that having a President who is a bully who tears people up, who doesn't listen, who doesn't work well with others, is worse than having a President who treats everyone with respect, but is a racist.

Is that OK? Or am I obligated to think racism is the worst thing that you can say about a person? Can I get a prioritized list of sins, please? Maybe it's context-dependent. A store owner can be a bully more than a racist, but a friend can be a racist more than a bully. And where do murder, rape, and lying fit on the list?

I think I need to make a spreadsheet. G+
Any Sounders FC fan want to offer me a lot of money for this well-used piece of history? I got it new when I was a kid. Have dunked many cookies in it. G+
"A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it." G+
"Secretary Clinton, do you really mean what you said, that if a topic is so sensitive that it's Top Secret, and you have documents regarding that topic, that you have no reason to suspect those documents might be classified?" Someone -- everyone -- please ask her this. G+
Hillary Clinton admitted today that she continues to lie about her mishandling of classified e-mail.

Executive Summary: Clinton falsely claimed that none of her public statements were false; then she admitted that some of her public statements were false (she admitted she sent or received e-mails classified at the time); and she falsely asserted that whether the e-mails were marked classified really matters.

Details: Clinton still maintains that the things she said in public were truthful, and consistent with what she said in a secret interview with FBI Director James Comey. She says she didn't mean to say Comey said her public statements were truthful, only that they were consistent with what she told Comey, and that Comey said what she told him was truthful.

But she denies the fact that Comey said, explicitly, that the content of several of her public statements was false. He did. She is lying. (She also lied when she said today that the point is the FBI statements, since we don't even know what she said to the FBI, and all we have is her public statements.)

But oddly, she then went on to admit that her public statements were false, conceding that some of the e-mails were classified at the time. She just disregards the fact that she ever said that they weren't.

Her main excuse -- which is also a lie -- is that it is "reasonable to conclude" that she and others would not have "suspected that they were classified" without proper markings, and none of the documents had that.

But Comey tells us the opposite. He was clear that it is the job of people in her position to know that information is classified, even if not marked, especially in the case of the several Top Secret documents. Markings are not necessary to know that something is classified, if you're the Secretary of State. Saying something is not marked classified is not an excuse under the law. Indeed, if you are not certain of the classification, you are required to treat it as classified.

Clinton saying it is reasonable to conclude that something isn't classified just because it is not marked classified is, simply, a lie. If she actually believes that, then she's utterly incompetent (and I don't believe she is).

She reiterated another excuse -- which is also a lie -- that if the documents are retroactively declassified, that this somehow mitigates the mishandling. It does not.

She is lying when she said her public statements were truthful. She is lying when she says that what matters in the question is her FBI statements. She is lying when she says that it is reasonable to conclude a document not "properly marked" as classified, is not classified. She is lying when she implies that she never said she didn't send or receive information that was classified at the time.

She lies a lot. Not that this is news ... but she continues to lie about illegally mishandling classified information, and that should be news. G+
If you believe the money to Iran wasn't part of the nuclear and hostages deal, do you believe that if it was, that the U.S. wouldn't lie about it?

There was an existing $400M claim by Iran, but was the reason we paid it because we wanted to get back our hostages and get the deal done, or because the claim was actually legitimate and we were likely to lose a court case? The money was shipped to Tehran, apparently, just as the hostages were freed.

This sounds very much like what we know about the White House and Iran: that they will string true facts together to mislead the public about the larger narrative. We know, for a fact, that they lied about the talks that resulted in the Iran deal, that they admitted to lying about them, and then that they intentionally deleted records of admitting to lying.

Long story short: in 2015, President Obama portrayed the Iran deal as the result of a moderate president being elected in Iran, even though the talks with Iran's government had begun more than a year before that election. There were secret talks going on, and they not only lied about it at the time to maintain the integrity of the talks, but they lied about it after the fact.

Reporter James Rosen had asked the State Department in 2013 if there were secret talks going on, and was told there were not. That was a lie. He later that year asked if it is the policy of State to lie "where the preservation or the secrecy of secret negotiations is concerned," and spokesperson Jen Psaki said, in essence, yes, it is.

In May of this year, the New York Times wrote an article about Ben Rhodes, in which he admits to the fact that they lied about the timing of the Iran talks. This prompted Rosen to look up the video of his past questions, and found that the one of Psaki admitting to a policy of lying had been deleted by the State Department. State later admitted it was intentionally deleted (after first lying about it), but they do not know who ordered the deletion.

So we know they lied about this deal. They admitted lying about it, they admitted to having a policy of lying, and they admitted to deleting the record of the admitting to lying.

This, even combined with the timing of the payments, isn't proof that the payment is linked to the hostages. But it is strong evidence that we have no reason to believe the U.S. government on this matter. G+
A President Trump is more likely to result in a positive outcome. Also, more likely to result in a negative outcome. G+
Even the New York Times' public editor admits that the New York Times is not properly covering the latest "Clinton Lied" story.

The excuse from the political editor of the NYT is ridiculous. This is a new story. This is the first time since Comey's statement and hearing that Clinton has made the false claims that the information was not classified at the time. She renewed that claim, despite Comey clearly saying it was false ... and then she lied by saying that Comey said her statement was true.

If this were Trump, everyone knows the Times would be all over it. But it's not Trump, it's Clinton ... so the Times doesn't even print the story.

Now, I suppose it is also possible that some of the Times' bias is not as much pro-Clinton, as anti-Fox. That's possible ... but no less disgusting. This is news, it is a new news, it's an important development about a very important issue (Clinton continues to lie about mishandling classified information), and the Times didn't even report on it. G+
Hillary Clinton: grossly negligent, or negligently gross? G+
PolitiFact has some significant problems in its analysis of Trump's claim about the presidential debates being opposite NFL games.

First, they give way too much weight to the notion that the Commission on Presidential Debates is "an independent, bipartisan organization." Historically, the group has served the two parties, rather than act independently of them.

(And FWIW, the CPD would actually take issue with PolitiFact calling them "bipartisan": that label (which they used to wear) gets them in trouble with the FEC, because in order to avoid certain regulations, they have to be *non*partisan. So they call themselves nonpartisan now, even though they still act to serve the two parties.)

So while it is not independent, it is effectively bipartisan. And while the dates were set "well in advance of when the parties’ nominees became clear this year," it's still the case that dates that fall on football games are going to lower ratings. And the idea that any Sunday or Monday night during late September or October would generate high viewership for a debate, when an NFL game is guaranteed to take place on those evenings, is patently idiotic.

So because it is bipartisan, and because the GOP candidate was not known (and though Hillary was a very safe bet, she also was not known), it's unlikely that the candidates or parties were the direct reason for the decision. But because they knew that there would be NFL games on both dates, the inescapable conclusion is that they wanted to reduce live viewership.

And to me that makes sense, because I think both sides think they can benefit from low viewership.

So "Pants On Fire" is too harsh here. Trump has a point about the decision to put the games on those nights implying a desire to reduce viewership. But PolitFact is right that there's no serious reason to think the underlying cause of the decision is a motive to help the Democrats. G+
It's just amazing: Clinton tells bald-faced lies about classified information on Fox News yesterday, and other than the Washington Post, Fox News, and a few explicitly conservative web sites, I can find no stories about it.

To be clear, these are a few of the facts, according to the FBI:

* Clinton had over 100 e-mails on her server that contained information that was classified (including Top Secret) at the time they were sent or received
* A few of them were actually marked classified, the rest were classified with no markings

Clinton flatly denied all of these facts in the interview. She maintains the lie that the information was only retroactively classified and that they had no reason to think that the information was classified (even though some were marked).

Further, even though Comey said that her previous public statements were false, she said that Comey said her public statements were true.

So, she lied. Big whopping lies about classified information that demonstrate she simply won't accept responsibility for what actually happened.

And virtually no one is reporting it outside of Fox, WaPo, and conservative sites.

Talking Points Memo, a left-wing site, reported on the interview, but treated the back-and-forth between Clinton and Wallace as though it were just a difference of opinion on vague facts.

CNN and MSNBC don't even mention it at all, but they are throwing everything they have at this meaningless "scandal" about Trump and the Khan family. G+
Thanks to WaPo for pointing out just how completely dishonest Clinton is still being about her e-mail server. She is still lying about the fact that she received e-mail that was classified at the time (not merely retroactively), including some that was marked classified, and that the FBI Director said her public claims on the subject were false.

She can't even tell the truth on this when we all know she is lying. I guess she is trying to convince the people who don't know the facts, hoping she can hold out for another few months. But here's the problem: as long as she keeps lying about it, she gives the press an excuse to keep bringing it up, and this will come up in the debates until she admits there was material, classified at the time, on her server, and that she was extremely careless in her handling of that material. G+
Who is better on the Bill of Rights, Trump or Clinton?

The First Amendment is about religion, speech, the press, and association. On religion, both favors punishing people for their religious beliefs (Clinton in terms of health care, Trump in terms of restricting/surveilling Muslims). They both act against the ability of the press to do its proper job (Clinton lies and doesn't give much access, whereas Trump actively bans them if they don't do their job well, in his eyes). Clinton is worse on the freedom of association (she opposes Citizens United, and favors many labor laws that restrict employers and employees), and she is worse on speech itself (favoring, in some cases, so-called "hate speech" laws). So I give the First Amendment, very narrowly, to Trump.

The Second Amendment: unless Trump is lying, he is clearly better than Clinton, though it is far from clear how strong a protector of the Second Amendment he'll actually be. Like Obama, Clinton rarely gives specifics on what she would do to curb gun violence, handwaving at literally useless ideas like "universal background checks" that will not make anyone safer. Most of her problems with guns, other than silly rhetoric and useless proposals, currently center around her dismisal of due process in removing the right to have a gun, although Trump has similar problems (more on that under the Fifth Amendment). Narrow win for Trump.

The Third Amendment: no direct evidence, but I can envision Trump forcing us to quarter troops, and I cannot envision Clinton doing it. Maybe it's just my imagingion, but I can see it. So, Clinton wins.

The Fourth Amendment: Clinton has a big problem here. Even though I cannot think of a time when she has encouraged violating Fourth Amendment rights, she herself has obstructed investigations that were under proper legal warrant, which tells me that whatever respect she has for the role of proper legal warrants is conditional. On the other hand, as with the Third Amendment, I can see Trump not caring about proper legal warrants, either getting them, or obeying them. But since neither has a history I can think of for encouraging violations of the Fourth Amendment, I'll call it a draw.

The Fifth Amendment: we have Trump encouraging action against unconvicted Muslims and illegal immigrants and businesses who send operations out of the country, and encouraging unlawful takings of private property for his own personal use. We have Clinton who thinks there is a "right to be believed" if you're an alleged victim of sexual abuse, and who -- as with the Fourth Amendment -- blocks attempts to apply due process to herself. And we have both of them encouraging the use of a list that does not adhere to due process requirements, as a means for taking away rights protected by the Second Amendment. Both of them, however, are strong advocates of the right against self-incrimination. We're all losers here.

The Sixth Amendment and Seventh Amendment: I can't think of Clinton or Trump favoring violations of our right to a fair trial. Draw.

The Eighth Amendment: Clinton and Trump both seem to be in favor of what I would call excessive fines for civil violations. Trump is also in favor, in some cases, of using what most people would call "cruel and unusual punishment"; e.g., torture. Technically, torture isn't punishment, but a means of extracting information; but I think it's still safe to give that point to Clinton.

The Ninth Amendment: it seems clear to me that both Clinton and Trump are completely uninterested in recognizing the rights of the people that aren't explicitly enumerated in the law. A very unfortunate draw.

The Tenth Amendment: I have seen a lot of evidence that Clinton simply disregards the Tenth Amendment. Indeed, this is one of the biggest divides between Democrats and Republicans: Democrats believe that there are literally no limits on what the federal government may do, as long as "the people" (meaning, the elected officials) support it, and the Constitution does not specifically prohibit it. Republicans believe -- as the Constitution clearly says -- that the federal government is significantly limited, allowed to do only what the Constitution says it can do. The Republicans are correct, obviously, and we see this play out often -- though imperfectly -- in areas like ObamaCare and entitlements/welfare and taxes and labor laws and guns and drug laws and gay marriage and a plethora of other issues.

In fairness to Hillary, Trump has no serious record of supporting the Tenth Amendment's principles, except when it aligns with his view. But his record of proposals that violate those principles is much smaller. Point, Trump.

So if we tally it all up, I get 3-2 in favor of Trump. Of course, you can't quantify things like this; and even if we could, the First Amendment would count a lot more than the Third, and maybe Trump would only win the First 60-40 and it's worth ten times as much as the Third. So tallying this up really isn't useful.

The real point is that both of them are pretty awful. G+
I wish Trump had picked Herman Cain as his running mate. Cain v Kaine would've been awesome. G+
How am I expected to pick between two New Yorkers for President? It's like ... the Giants, or the Jets? I vote Patriots. Condi Rice for NFL Commissioner! Make the NFL Great Again! G+
I bet if some guy tried to kill a Republican President, Obama would release him from jail. G+
I thought it was dumb calling McCain a "third Bush term," and I think it's dumb calling Clinton a "third Obama term." Also, "third Reagan term," and "third Clinton term" were dumb, even though Bush and Gore were the VPs. G+
President Barack Obama said Wednesday America is already great and does not need some "self declared savior" to fix it.

In other words, Obama is saying that America shouldn't let Trump pull the same trick Obama did eight years ago. G+
There's serious policy differences between Republicans and Democrats.

But watching both conventions, you'd never know it. Well, OK, you'd know about differences on guns and abortion. But that's about it. G+
The day after the DNC focused, in part, on Black Lives Matter and Planned Parenthood, both the remaining cops charged in the death of Freddie Gray, and the filmmakers charged in an undercover exposé of Planned Parenthood, had their criminal charges dropped. G+
Hillary Clinton did have a big hand in smashing this "glass ceiling," but she didn't do it this week, or this year, or last year. She did it in 2007 when almost everyone thought she was going to be the Democratic nominee for President, and virtually no one opposed her because of her sex. G+
Everyone seems to have forgotten what Citizens United v. FEC is. It only made it so that people could pool their money together and use it for election speech. It said that government cannot restrict speech because of who is saying it.

Indeed, no government act I can think of in recent memory has been more democratizing than the Citizens United decision. It means that if there's some rich guy out there dumping his own money into a campaign for someone who is opposed to bubble gum -- totally legal before Citizens United -- you and I can form a group called "Geeks for Gumballs" and spend our pooled money on electing someone who is in favor of bubble gum. That's all this is. It gives people more voice, not less.

Yes, it applies to ExxonMobil, but it also applies to independent filmmakers, unions, and public-interest groups like the Sierra Club and the NRA. Before Citizens United, only individuals -- not nonprofit corporations -- could spend unlimited money on campaigns (well, and news media, which for some reason got an exemption, even though independent filmmakers didn't). Overturning Citizens United would give more power to billionaires in the political process, by criminalizing the speech of the rest of us who need to pool our resources together to get heard.

Citizens United did not say that corporations are people, nor did it rely on that principle. Citizens United did not increase spending limits. Citizens United did not allow anonymous donations or change reporting requirements. Citizens United did not create or enable Super PACs. Citizens United did not do any of the things that the Democrats say it did.

All Citizens United said is that you don't lose your right to spend money on political speech just because you are joining your voice with other voices. That's it.

And to be against that is ... baffling, frankly. G+
These instructions are literally impossible to comply with. G+
Far be it from me to defend Hillary Clinton -- and even less so, Debbie Wasserman Schultz -- let alone link to a New Republic article, but I keep waiting for evidence that the DNC "rigged" anything, and I don't see it. At the end of the day, all the evidence I've seen shows that the elections were held fairly and according to the rules, and that a lot more people voted for Clinton than for Bernie Sanders. Even if the DNC acted on the pro-Clinton suggestions in the e-mails, helping promote one candidate is not actually "rigging" anything.

On the other hand, I also don't see how saying that these were Russian hackers somehow puts the DNC in a better light. To me, that makes it much worse for the Democrats, because they allowed themselves to be infiltrated by one of our greatest geopolitical adversaries. G+
It's creepy to have one of the two major American political parties united by the idea that it should be illegal to advertise an independent film that criticized their nominee. G+
Wait: so the Democratic National Committee favored the Democratic candidate over the Socialist candidate?! G+
An oldie, but a goodie: "Superdelegate," a love song I wrote 8 years ago. G+
Stop announcing your VP picks. It just causes terrorist attacks. G+
If a vote not for Trump is for Hillary, then a vote not for Hillary is for Trump, so a vote that for neither is for ... both? G+
After years, I am still bothered by the fact that Reince Priebus has EI in his first name, and IE in his last. G+
Condoleeza Rice needs to be our next leader. The current administration is awful in every way. They hate the rule of law, and are about factions and demonization instead of bringing people together. #NeverGoodell   G+

My new game, PokeMongo.

| | Comments (0)
My new game, PokeMongo. G+
Lynch refuses to answer why the relevant law was not considered in the decision on whether to prosecute Clinton. G+
It's funny when a representative is out of time and they say "I yield back." No, you don't. G+
I love the new Clinton defense of her actions for illegally mishandling classified information: "... professionals, many with years of handling sensitive, classified material, they did not believe that it was; I did not have a basis for second-guessing their conclusion."

There is no evidence that they did not believe the information was not classified. It seems far more likely that they knew it was classified, but did not know that Clinton's private server was insecure ... because why would the Secretary of State's only e-mail account be insecure? That's stupid, right?

But even if they didn't think it was classified, why would she second-guess them? Because she's the Secretary of State, and she knows what the rules on classified information are, and she told them to send e-mail to her private server, and she knows that server is insecure and that she's responsible for it. That's why. And that she didn't, over and over again, means she's grossly negligent.

In addition, there's the idiotic "they were not marked, or were marked inaccurately." It doesn't matter. The law doesn't care about the marking. She is the Secretary of State and she knows what subjects are classified, and if she has any questions, she must make sure. If she doesn't have any questions -- over and over again -- then she's grossly negligent. G+
What would Hillary and Donald be like in Star Trek's Mirror Universe? Would they be even more dishonest, corrupt, and nasty, or would they be ... less? And would either one have a goatee? G+
We are better off than we have ever been.

Nothing is perfect. In this life, nothing ever will be perfect. Joblessness is a problem. Our economy needs a lot of improvement. We don't have enough freedom to make our own choices. And violence -- while on a very long downward trend -- still takes too many lives and causes too much pain.

But we have more wealth than ever before. Less violence than ever before. Longer lives than ever before. More knowledge than ever before. And more freedom than we've had in any of our lifetimes.

Try to change what's bad ... but don't believe that things aren't great. They are. G+
When people are lying, I am not shy about saying so. Hillary lied, over and over, in many ways, about her e-mail server.

But Comey is right to not say that she lied. He is the FBI Director. For him to say she lied is to say that he has evidence that she knew, at the time she made these false statements, that they were false. He has no such evidence.

As private citizens we have the luxury of saying what we want. I try to make only very small leaps, and I think it is a very small one to say that Clinton lied here. But Comey, as the FBI Director, should not do that. He should stick to what the evidence demonstrates clearly of the case. G+
This is important: Comey said he didn't evaluate whether Clinton committed a crime under the statute. He only evaluated whether she committed a crime under one part of the statute, the part that requires intent. He said he did not evaluate whether she committed a crime under the "gross negligence" part of the statute.

So everyone who says she didn't commit a crime under this statute ... the FBI made no such claim. They didn't even consider whether she committed this crime. G+
Here's the question for people who think the FBI was right to not recommend an indictment for Hillary Clinton:

We know she mishandled classified information in storing it on her server, we just don't know that she intended to do so. The statute makes it a felony to do so with that intent, or to do so via gross negligence.

So, what would Clinton have had to do to reach the bar for "gross negligence"? If this wasn't gross negligence, it's hard to see what would be. So what does that bar actually look like? G+
FBI Director James Comey laid out a case that is nearly an airtight proof that Clinton committed a felony.

I don't see how he can conclude there's no case against Clinton. He said, "our investigation looked at whether there is evidence that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on [Clinton's] personal system in violation of a federal statute that makes it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."

Comey concluded:
* information classified at the time (including "top secret" information) was improperly transmitted on Clinton's personal systems
* information classified at the time was improperly stored on Clinton's personal systems
* Clinton did mishandle classified information
* No clear evidence that Clinton "intended" to mishandle the information, but there is evidence Clinton was "extremely careless", including that the subject matter of e-mails she sent was clearly classified
* either "extremely careless" does not amount to "grossly negligent", or we don't care that it does (he never explains this at all, and therefore never makes the case that charges shouldn't be brought)

Comey said that past cases like this involved intent. But even if that is true, so what? The statute draws no distinction between intent and gross negligence.

The DOJ should ignore the FBI's recommendation to not prosecute, and should prosecute based on the clear evidence of gross negligence. G+
"What in the hell are you going to do with freedom?" -- Colonist to a slave, in The Patriot
I hear on the news that the mastermind of the Turkey terror attack is nicknamed "Ahkmed One-Arm."

Soon after, I turn on Punisher: War Zone, and Microchip says to Punisher: "You ever hear of I'm posing as a one-armed Wahabi warrior who took a crap in a cave next to Bin Laden. I think I can score you a couple of rocket launchers."

My brain conflates the two a little bit, and for a moment I think that "Ahkmed One-Arm" was a reference from earlier in the movie, instead of from the real news. G+
The gun case yesterday was 6-2 ... with Thomas and Sotomayor dissenting. Really.

While her joining Thomas was not predictable to me, it was predictable that, Sotomayor does not join Thomas on the constitutional question, but merely on the question of whether the statute covers the actual behavior. G+
<pudge/*> (pronounced "PudgeGlob") is thousands of posts over many years by Pudge.

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."