Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to et_al's blog Subscribe


Special Features

Wednesday, July 25, 2018

In a blow to President Trump, a federal judge says a lawsuit that alleges Trump's business interests violate the Constitution can proceed ... The Emoluments Clause bars any president from personally profiting from his dealings with foreign governments -- or even U.S. state governments. It's the first ruling in federal court to define "emolument," which goes undefined in the U.S. Constitution's two emoluments clauses.

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

Yet in the context of the Mueller investigation and the Trump presidency, a segment of Kavanaugh's speech -- the whole of which he later published as an article -- has become an exhibit in the early case for the grave danger that he poses to our republic. If Kavanaugh's writings on special counsel investigations really influenced Trump's decision to nominate him, then Trump is a bigger fool than I have imagined. Kavanaugh's writings on the subject don't clarify all of his views on the subject of the Mueller investigation. But they clarify certain big things, and those things are really not good for Donald Trump. Noah Feldman writes that "Properly understood, Kavanaugh's expressed views actually support the opposite conclusion" than the one to which many knees are jerking. Feldman is exactly right. In some respects, he actually understates the case.

Friday, June 29, 2018

Here's a question for our nonoriginalist readers--and it's not intended to be a trick question. If President Trump won't choose the type of justice you wish he would--defined however you like--would you prefer he replaced Justice Kennedy with: (a) A self-described living constitutionalist/multiple modalities/common-law-constitutionalist/moral-readings--pick your fave--justice who shares President Trump's political and moral views or (b) A self-described originalist? Or, to put the question another way: Which type of Justice would you most fear? And, if it is (a), then doesn't that tell you something about the possible merits of (b)?

Friday, June 22, 2018

While the attacks differ in location, level of carnage and the community affected, an FBI study released Wednesday found that a common element of the attacks lies with the shooters, who are frequently motivated by grievances in their lives, wielding guns they obtained legally and targeting specific victims when they open fire.


Here's the state website. statutes.capitol.texas.gov It's text based and the formatting is terrible. That's why I use third parties.

#59 | Posted by donnerboy

If you are going to quote me then address the point I made instead of resorting to non sequitur.

From your chosen source, wiki.

Liberal and feminist legal scholars have had various reactions to Roe, not always giving the decision unqualified support. One argument is that Justice Blackmun reached the correct result but went about it the wrong way.[83] Another is that the end achieved by Roe does not justify its means of judicial fiat.[84]
Then follows the identification of at least eight legal scholars from the liberal side, among them Justices Stevens and Ginsburg. I liked what Archibald Cox wrote:
"[Roe's] failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations.... Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution."[88]
#60 | Posted by IndianaJones

Read it and weep, Indy.

BTW, I too am in that majority. But unlike you and many others, I can separate personal and political opinions from legal ones.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable