Word is that Pudding Brain has a fake e mail address. Oddly, it is a .gov address…which means he was helped in getting it by employees of the government. Like spending half his time in Delaware, this is a means whereby he avoids FOIA requests…if it doesn’t happen in the White House or in Biden’s official communications, then it doesn’t show up in oversight. To be sure, some of this is to make sure Biden is just out of the public eye – he can barely do an hour of work a day – but most of it is just to hide what is going on. From you. As Joe said, he doesn’t work for us.

Lot of argument about whether or not Trump should drop the 2020 vote issue. Maybe he should: but I’d like to point out that the GOP’s best chance of an easy move-on from Trump was for it to loudly proclaim 2020 as filled with questions and pledging to vindicate Trump’s assertion. Trump is mad – he had the White House stolen from him. It doesn’t matter if you believe that; he does. And the anger is doubled by all the GOPers he helped out dropping dime on him. This, I think, is the reason he’s running: he wants vindication.

Seems an IRS agent killed another IRS agent in a shoot out – which leaves us with the question: why are IRS agents armed?

Ninth Circuit has ruled that Idaho’s ban on biological males competing in women’s sports is unconstitutional…on what possible grounds I can’t imagine. I’m sure they dressed it up under equal protection but for heaven’s sake this issue has only existed even in theory since the 1970’s and we have no legal consensus on how all this works. Just because someone says it is so doesn’t make it so – this will go to the Supreme Court where I view it’s future as murky. There could be 2 sorta-Right Justices who want to make a name for themselves on the left on this issue as Kennedy did on SSM. The real problem here is the Courts refusing to hold themselves bound by the law – whatever is in the Constitution, this issue isn’t covered by it, plus or minus. It is therefore a matter for the States or the people to decide.

We do have in the Constitution the power to regular how federal courts operate – the right to appeal to the federal judiciary is not absolute…and as the Courts are selective in what cases they take, we can be selective in what cases they can hear. I’d hold that for a federal court to even hear a case they’d have to quote chapter and verse where the case is covered under the Constitution before they even start. I’d also work on a bit of State nullification: that is, a State going ahead and enforcing the law even if a federal court strikes it down on the grounds that the federal courts have no power over the issue. Depending on who is in the White House this could get interesting…but to me it is a fight worth having. That is: making it clear that there are issues the federal government simply has zero authority over. And lets see a President try to arrest the government of a State for not obeying a court order. Sometimes to get change you have to provoke a crisis.

Main thing: there isn’t supposed to be a final word under our system of government: it was certainly never meant to be 9 judges making the final call.