2023 Politics: No One Could Have Predicted This.

[RJDiogenes]

Staggering and horrific indeed. And difficult to believe, but those are the official estimates. I don't know how Putin has avoided a bullet in the brain for this long.

[scottydog]

He's probably got layers upon layers of incredible air-tight security.

[Gary]

These stats about the Russian military are pretty amazing, if accurate.

"Russia has lost 315,000 on the battlefield." Could that possibly be true? The number is staggering

Absolutely. Putin views the conscripts as cannon fodder.

[RJDiogenes]

He's probably got layers upon layers of incredible air-tight security.

He does, but it's the military who handles it. Those guys must hate him with the white-hot intensity of the sun for killing all those troops.

[Gary]

Get the word out on this one: Overhaul of Civil Asset Forfeiture is Making Progress in Congress

[RJDiogenes]

^^ He's right. It boggles the mind that that can be legal.

In humor news, Rudy Giuliani continues to get stupider.

[Gary]

^^ He's right. It boggles the mind that that can be legal.

In humor news, Rudy Giuliani continues to get stupider.

Rudy belongs in a retirement home with no access to telephones or the Internet.

[Gary]

Colorado Supreme Court kicks Trump off the state's 2024 ballot for violating the U.S. Constitution

[Lupine]

^I fully expect the Supreme Court to overturn that and probably pretty soon- if not later today. The loons in Texas are already threatening to take Biden off the ballot there.
Next year is going to be a long one.

[Gary]

^I fully expect the Supreme Court to overturn that and probably pretty soon- if not later today. The loons in Texas are already threatening to take Biden off the ballot there.
Next year is going to be a long one.

The Constitution dictates that the States run the election for President. Therefore, an action brought to them would be considered what is called a "non-justiciable question". The current Court has so much attention on it thanks to the ethics issue that I won't be surprised if they decline to hear it (which is the proper course of action).

[RJDiogenes]

I'm expecting them to decide that the 14th Amendment applies to the president, but that due process must be followed. Otherwise, that threat in Texas will portend a future where Republicans will only be able to run in Republican-ruled States and Democrats will only be able to run in Democrat-ruled States.

[Lupine]

^Yeah it can turn into a real mess.

[Gary]

I'm expecting them to decide that the 14th Amendment applies to the president, but that due process must be followed. Otherwise, that threat in Texas will portend a future where Republicans will only be able to run in Republican-ruled States and Democrats will only be able to run in Democrat-ruled States.

NPR interviewed a law scholar who pointed out there is nothing in the language of the 14th Amendment which states "...convicted..."; therefore, it is enforceable on its face. Interesting to see what kind of (as the late Justice Scalia would say) "argle bargle" Trump's camp concocts.

[RJDiogenes]

NPR interviewed a law scholar who pointed out there is nothing in the language of the 14th Amendment which states "...convicted..."; therefore, it is enforceable on its face.

If they rule that way, then whoever owns the State Supreme Court decides who's on the ballot in that State.

[Gary]

'Lawyer up and shut up': Defense lawyer has advice for RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel