The Three Whisky Happy Hour: In Context

Another TWHH first? The Waitresses sending us out? Nice.

This is from a much longer post by Spencer Klavan on X. He goes into more detail as the aspects of the case, but this portion came to mind when you were discussing Satan in Iowa. He strikes me as being right on the mark.

"It’s absurd to imagine that the law has no feasible way of understanding the word “religion” in the Establishment Clause so that the Abrahamic faiths and the Christianity that saturated the country at its founding count, whereas invented flapdoodle contrived to mock our most cherished traditions does not count. Obviously the founders did not intend to, nor did they in fact, disarm us of the necessary tools for telling one from the other as legitimately worthy of state protection." -- Spencer Klavan, X, 12/15/23

Ironic that John had heard about the IEDs found at the border, but Steve and Lucretia had not!

I'm concerned about what is unequivocally a denial of Donald Trump's due process rights. Appeal to the Circuit Court is a matter of right for a defendant. By taking the case, the Supreme Court is violating Donald Trump's civil rights. How should he be compensated? How might he be compensated?

Furthermore, it seems to me that in order to convince the Supreme Court to deny so blatantly a litigant's due process rights, the government - in this case Jack Smith - should have to show extremely exigent circumstances (garden-variety exigence obviously being insufficient), which clearly don't exist here. For all of the hysteria on the left, this is not a matter of life and death.

Finally on this crazy-ass situation, Jack Smith's citation to U.S. v. Nixon seems inapposite, given that Nixon was not at the time a declared candidate in a nationwide election to be held less than eleven months from the time of the "emergency" appeal.

Steve and Lucretia need to work on their act before they go on the road, but they're surely on their way to becoming the next Burns and Allen.

The best joke about the firing of Liz Magill was told by Don Surber:

Penn’s president is Liz Magill. Paul McCartney wrote a song about her. Want to hear it? Here it goes:

Her name was Magill and she called herself Liz
But everyone knew her as Nazi

LibertyDefender (View Comment):

I’m concerned about what is unequivocally a denial of Donald Trump’s due process rights. Appeal to the Circuit Court is a matter of right for a defendant. By taking the case, the Supreme Court is violating Donald Trump’s civil rights. How should he be compensated? How might he be compensated?

Furthermore, it seems to me that in order to convince the Supreme Court to deny so blatantly a litigant’s due process rights, the government – in this case Jack Smith – should have to show extremely exigent circumstances (garden-variety exigence obviously being insufficient), which clearly don’t exist here. For all of the hysteria on the left, this is not a matter of life and death.

There are so many reasons for the Supreme Court to kick the Smith-Trump case back to the DC Court of Appeals. It would postpone it until after the election and perhaps make the case moot and thus keep them out of politics. It would allow circuit court judges to review the arguments and give SCOTUS the benefit of seeing a round of arguments at a higher level than a district judge.