Kamala Harris top choice to replace Joe Biden if he steps aside, sources say​

Forgot how much it sucks driving on the interstates here.

Steveson, not Dan...
I've been saying for awhile I think he could be a legit defensive lineman if he embraces it. Wish it was the Bears instead of the bills, they need dline help.
Login to view embedded media

It is great to be an Iowa Wrestling fan.

Go Hawks!

The Lezby from Haiti has spoken!!

Beginning soon.

Login to view embedded media

So i was running an errand in downtown Arlington today near our courthouse/government complex. As Ii was walking along the sidewalk, I was passed by a reasonably dressed and groomed, young-ish but not too young, african american man who I thought was talking on his phone via earbuds (but I'm not sure). it quickly became apparent that he was very agitated and angry, culminating in him (i) muttering something about "the gays" taking all of the jobs and his inability to get one, and (ii) throwing his near-full bottle of sprite against the side of the building we were passing.

Was he just a plain old crazy street person, or someone who was actually passed over? Honestly, I've not heard anything about "the gays" taking all of the jobs these days, but perhaps I need to get out more. (Note, I am actually puzzled at what i saw, notwithstanding the tongue in cheek tone)

The Supreme Court on Friday reduced the authority of executive agencies, sweeping aside a longstanding legal precedent that required courts to defer to the expertise of federal administrators in carrying out laws passed by Congress.
The precedent, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, is one of the most cited in American law. There have been 70 Supreme Court decisions relying on Chevron, along with 17,000 in the lower courts.
The decision threatens regulations in countless areas, including the environment, health care and consumer safety.
The vote was 6 to 3, dividing along ideological lines.
The conservative legal movement and business groups have long objected to the Chevron ruling, partly based on a general hostility to government regulation and partly based on the belief, grounded in the separation of powers, that agencies should have only the power that Congress has explicitly given them.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT


Supporters of the doctrine say it allows specialized agencies to fill gaps in ambiguous statutes to establish uniform rules in their areas of expertise, a practice they say was contemplated by Congress.
Its opponents counter that it is the role of courts, not executive branch officials, to determine the meanings of statutes. They also say agencies’ interpretations can change with new administrations and put a thumb on the scale in favor of the government in lawsuits even when it is a party to the case.
Got a news tip about the courts?
If you have information to share about the Supreme Court or other federal courts, please send us a secure tip at nytimes.com/tips.

The court decided two almost identical cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451, and Relentless v. Department of Commerce, No. 22-1219. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was recused from the first case because she had participated in it as a federal appeals court judge.
Both cases involved a 1976 federal law that requires herring boats to carry federal observers to collect data used to prevent overfishing. Under a 2020 regulation interpreting the law, owners of the boats were required not only to transport the observers but also to pay $700 a day for their oversight.
Fishermen in New Jersey and Rhode Island sued, saying the 1976 law did not authorize the relevant agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, to impose the fee.

Editors’ Picks​

The High Line Opened 15 Years Ago. What Lessons Has It Taught Us?​

‘The Lion King’ at 30: Jason Weaver Sang for Simba but Few Knew It​

It’s Brutus, Not Bruno! The Etiquette of Remembering Your Friends’ Pets’ Names.​

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT


Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT


The two appeals courts — one in Washington, the other in Boston — ruled that the deference called for by the Chevron decision required a ruling for the government. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in Washington, ruled that the agency’s interpretation of the 1976 law “to allow industry-funded monitoring was reasonable.” The First Circuit, in Boston, said that “at the very least” the agency’s interpretation of the 1976 law was “certainly reasonable.”
The fishermen were represented by Cause of Action Institute, which says its mission is “to limit the power of the administrative state,” and the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which says it aims “to protect constitutional freedoms from violations from the administrative state.” Both groups have financial ties to the network of foundations and advocacy organizations funded by Charles Koch, a billionaire who has long supported conservative and libertarian causes.
Forty years ago, when Chevron was decided by a unanimous but short-handed six-member Supreme Court, with three justices recused, it was generally viewed as a victory for conservatives. In response to a challenge from environmental groups, the justices sustained a Reagan-era interpretation of the Clean Air Act that loosened regulation of emissions, saying the Environmental Protection Agency’s reading of the statute was “a reasonable construction” that was “entitled to deference.”

Lawyers and former judges said they are baffled by an order issued this week by the federal judge overseeing Donald Trump’s pending trial on charges that he mishandled classified documents — and believe her instructions suggest the case will not go to trial anytime soon.

Sign up for Fact Checker, our weekly review of what's true, false or in-between in politics.

“In my 30 years as a trial judge, I have never seen an order like this,” said Jeremy Fogel, who served on the federal bench in California and now runs the Berkeley Judicial Institute.

On Monday evening, U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon ordered the defense lawyers and the prosecutors in the case to file submissions outlining proposed jury instructions based on two scenarios, each of which badly misstates the law and facts of the case, according to legal experts.

She has given the sides two weeks to craft jury instructions around competing interpretations of the Presidential Records Act, often referred to as the PRA. While the law says presidential records belong to the public and are to be turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration at the end of a presidency, Trump’s lawyers have argued the PRA gave Trump the right to keep classified materials as his personal property.


“What she has asked the parties to do is very, very troubling,” Nancy Gertner, a former federal judge in Massachusetts, said of Cannon. “She is giving credence to arguments that are on their face absurd. She is ignoring a raft of other motions, equally absurd, that are unreasonably delaying the case.”
Subscribe to The Trump Trials, our weekly email newsletter on Donald Trump's four criminal cases
Trump’s team has argued that under the PRA, he automatically designated the classified records he is accused of willfully retaining as personal documents when he removed them from the White House and took them to Mar-a-Lago, his Florida home and private club. Prosecutors and legal experts have rejected Trump’s interpretation and said the former president’s reading of the PRA is simply wrong.

Cannon is presiding over a case involving the first former U.S. president ever charged with a crime, and Fogel said it is not inappropriate for a judge in that situation to seek guidance. Still, he said, Cannon’s order is an unusual way to sequence the legal decisions and she may be putting “the cart before the horse.”


Typically, he said, judges make their rulings about the laws at the heart of the case — and then determine jury instructions closer to trial time.

“The more innocent interpretation is that she is just trying to get a sense of what the practical implications are if she decides one way or the other on the legal issues,” Fogel said. “The less charitable view is that she should decide the legal issues first and then decide how she should implement the law in the case.”

Cannon held a hearing weeks ago to discuss when to schedule the trial — one of four criminal cases Trump is facing as he again seeks the White House and has clinched enough delegates for the Republican nomination. Cannon has yet to make a decision on the trial date.



Last week’s hearing focused on two requests that Trump made to dismiss the case, one based on supposed flaws in the Espionage Act and another based on what Trump lawyers claim are the sweeping powers granted to him by the PRA.


Cannon, a Trump nominee who has been on the bench since late 2020, expressed skepticism toward both claims while also suggesting they may play a meaningful role in instructing the jury at the end of the trial. She quickly ruled against Trump’s claims about flaws in the Espionage Act and has yet to rule on the merits of the PRA request.

Her two-page order embraces at least the possibility that Trump’s PRA claims are valid, a stance that veteran national security lawyers questioned.
“The PRA is just not relevant here in any way it all; it provides no defense. To even allow it to be argued at trial would create confusion for the jury,” said Barbara McQuade, a law professor at the University of Michigan and a former U.S. attorney.
Ordinarily, a judge will take up the question of jury instructions much later in the process. McQuade called Cannon’s decision to reach for those questions ahead of a slew of other pretrial motions “premature and baffling.”


Cannon’s order suggests that she thinks the PRA is critical to the case — and that parts of the law are open to interpretation.

Jason R. Baron, former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration, said that’s just not true. He said Cannon seems to continually conflate the PRA with the Espionage Act, which makes unauthorized sharing or handling of national defense information a crime. Baron said the PRA does not influence whether someone can be prosecuted under the Espionage Act.
“There is no ambiguity that the classified documents at issue in this case are presidential records,” Baron said. “He wasn’t indicted because he took newspaper clippings. He was indicted because he took documents that were marked as classified.”
Baron said the judge, who has not previously overseen a major national security trial, seems to be embracing a fantastical view of the law.



“Like the queen in ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ Judge Cannon appears to be asking the jury to believe at least two impossible things before breakfast,” Baron said. “First, that a president has unfettered discretion to decide that documents marked ‘top secret’ are his own personal records, just because he decided to keep them for himself. And second, that a president can avoid criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act because he decided that classified records were really his under the PRA. In both cases, the judge profoundly misinterprets the law.”

First off trump isn t in power. Secondly if trump can do it when he becomes president biden can do it now. So ya frinkin pussy democrats let's start locking these judges up and these traitors. If not now when. What frikin more do ya need. Merick Garland do your job or step down.

Does this piss you off as much as it does me? Just another example of people liking rules except when they don’t think it should apply to them.

Can’t count the number of BS “Service Dogs” I see these days.

Dude. What are you doing? OK well don't hit play on that vid...yo...what did I just say?
Login to view embedded media

Brett Favre and three former pro wrestlers are among several people and businesses being sued by the Mississippi Department of Human Services over millions of misspent welfare dollars intended to help poor families.

According to the Associated Press, the defendants are accused in the lawsuit of squandering more than $20 million from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families anti-poverty program, part of what Mississippi Auditor Shad White has described as the largest public corruption case in the state in at least 20 years.
The lawsuit, filed Monday in state court in Jackson, came less than two weeks after Nancy New and her son, Zachary, pleaded guilty to criminal charges in connection with the misspending. New and her son, who ran a nonprofit group and education company, agreed to testify against others.







New and her son, along with former Mississippi Department of Human Services executive director John Davis and three other people, were charged in mid-2020, accused of misusing welfare money on things such as drug rehabilitation in Malibu, Calif., for former pro wrestler Brett DiBiase. DiBiase, along with his father, Ted DiBiase Sr., and brother, Ted DiBiase Jr., are defendants in the lawsuit filed Monday.
The auditor last year demanded repayment of $77 million of misspent welfare funds from several people and groups, including $1.1 million paid to Favre, who lives in Mississippi and has not been charged with any wrongdoing. At issue with Favre is the matter of appearances for which he was paid but did not show up. Favre has repaid the money, but White said last fall that he owes $228,000 of interest on it. Favre has said he did not know the money he received came from welfare funds and has added that his charity has given millions to help poor children in Mississippi and Wisconsin, where he became a Hall of Fame quarterback for the Green Bay Packers.
In May 2020, Favre said he received money “for obligations I didn’t meet” and, in adding that he had begun repayment, tweeted, “I love Mississippi and I would never knowingly do anything to take away from those that need it most.”



Monday’s lawsuit alleges that, as the largest individual outside investor and stockholder in Prevacus, a Florida-based company attempting to develop a concussion drug, Favre urged CEO Jacob VanLandingham to ask Nancy New to use welfare grant money to invest in the company.
He also is accused of hosting a Prevacus stock sales presentation attended by VanLandingham, Davis, Nancy New, Zach New and Ted DiBiase Jr. at his home in January 2019. At that meeting, the suit alleges an agreement was reached to spend “substantial” welfare grant money on Prevacus and its corporate affiliate, PreSolMD Inc.
Although the stock was in the names of the News, the suit alleges Favre, VanLandingham and the companies benefited financially and demands repayment of $2.1 million in welfare grant money paid to the two companies in 2019. Attempts by the AP to reach Favre after the lawsuit was filed were unsuccessful.







In a joint statement, Attorney General Lynn Fitch and Gov. Tate Reeves (R) said the “purpose with this suit is to seek justice for the broken trust of the people of Mississippi and recover funds that were misspent.”
DiBiase Sr. is a Christian evangelist and motivational speaker whose Heart of David Ministry Inc. received $1.7 million in welfare grant money in 2017 and 2018 for mentorship, marketing and other services, according to the lawsuit.
“I applaud the [attorney general’s] team filing this suit and am grateful the state is taking another step toward justice for the taxpayers,” White said (via the AP). “We will continue to work alongside our federal partners — who have been given access to all our evidence for more than two years — to make sure the case is fully investigated.”

And they're "gulp" Fuskers.


P.S. They also rank Colby as the second best guard in the conference. With 2 so highly thought of linemen, expect the Iowa oline to kill it this year, right? Right???

Wow, just Wow!!

"After former Somali Prime Minister Hassan Khaire sat in front of Minnesota's Somali "leaders" this week and said any Somali who votes for a black man (in the CD5 race) has something wrong with their morals, here he is today."

Login to view embedded media

The website for the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” — a right-wing policy and administrative wish list — manifests its worldview immediately. Its wish, the site says, is for “you the reader — Mr. Smith, Mrs. Smith, and Ms. Smith — to come to Washington or support those who can.”


Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter.

That archaic differentiation between married and other women is obviously intentional, sending the message that Heritage and its allies seek to turn back the clock not just past “wokeness” but even past the movement to treat women as equal participants in American society. It is a microcosm of what the effort intends: restructuring the country so that the right — meaning primarily straight White men, as was the case 100 years ago — can decide how power and status are allocated.
Skip to end of carousel

Sign up for the How to Read This Chart newsletter​

Subscribe to How to Read This Chart, a weekly dive into the data behind the news. Each Saturday, national columnist Philip Bump makes and breaks down charts explaining the latest in economics, pop culture, politics and more.

End of carousel
Kevin Roberts is the president of the Heritage Foundation and has overseen the organization as it has shifted toward an explicit embrace of Donald Trump and his approach to government. In an interview with former Virginia congressman and college professor David Brat (R) on Tuesday, Roberts articulated his view of the moment.



“Let me speak about the radical left,” Roberts said. “You and I have both been parts of faculties and faculty senates and understand that the left has taken over our institutions.” He said the left was “apoplectic” because, now, “our side is winning.”
🏛️
Follow Politics
I “just want to encourage you with some substance,” Roberts added, “that we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”
It is true that, particularly of late, his side has been winning. That is not a function of his side convincing a majority of Americans that its policies or worldview are preferable. Instead, it reflects the Supreme Court’s decisions reversing access to abortion, stripping power from federal agencies and, most immediately, granting broad impunity to presidents (which, Roberts told Brat, was something the right “ought to be really encouraged by”). The court that made those changes is one that arose largely despite popular will, not because of it. The immunity decision, for example, was opposed by most Americans and even most Republicans — at least until the question was framed as granting immunity to Trump.



Roberts describes the moment as a second “revolution,” one that he hopes will remain bloodless as long as, we can impute, the left doesn’t provide too much resistance. But against what is his side revolting?
There’s a hint in his comments leading up to that declaration of war: that the left has “taken over” institutions, including universities. We know what this means from recent context. He’s talking in part about how college students are more liberal than non-college students, a divide that predates Trump but expanded in the Trump era. He’s talking, too, about the perception on the right that college admission and employment are driven by considerations of race and identity that disadvantage Whites. He’s talking about how he and people like him feel others who are not like him are gaining power at their expense.
This is the heart of Trumpism, of course. The gap between college- and non-college-educated Americans began to widen during Barack Obama’s presidency, as populism became an increasingly potent part of Republican politics. The ostensible trigger was taxation, but that was a framing driven heavily by the traditional elements of the GOP, which saw cutting taxes as a central policy goal. Rank-and-file members of the tea party movement often put it differently: They objected to where their tax dollars were going. To people on public assistance — meaning, in their estimation, non-White people who live in cities. To foreign governments. To immigrants.



Trump was a beneficiary of this worldview mostly because he shared it and was willing to amplify it. Make America great again, because it’s not great now, what with Black people protesting the police, Pride flags flying and immigrants seeking new lives in America. Revert America to its previous greatness so that you don’t have to hear Spanish at the supermarket or be aware that someone is dressed in drag. Muffle and sideline those New York and Los Angeles elites who, in the estimation of many Republicans, are actively discriminating against White people and Christians.
This fear of a declining America because of an ascendant left is pervasive on the right. Justice Samuel Alito has spoken of it publicly, as did former attorney general William P. Barr. (Trump does constantly, of course.) The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 is centered on securing power for the right primarily as a response to that fear. The Supreme Court’s immunity decision is rooted in the idea that what broke wasn’t Trump’s response to his 2020 election loss but the Biden administration’s effort to hold him to account through the investigation led by special counsel Jack Smith.
That decision was written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who also wrote the 2013 decision asserting that the era during which Blacks were systematically excluded from access to voting had ended. It was an early benchmark in the right’s effort to claw back power for traditional American values, meaning for traditional Americans, meaning for White Americans.



So much of this is about demography and power. America’s demography is shifting, albeit not in the way that most people think. When the baby boom was young, there was a large White majority and a small Black minority. Now, about half of younger Americans are Black, Asian, Hispanic or mixed race, and the density of immigrants in the population is about what it was a century ago. They are more likely to take advantage of shifts in the acceptability of LGBTQ+ identity.
This shift means more voices challenging how American systems tacitly or explicitly advantage White people and straight people and men, and that means more of a reaction. Race and gender are easy scapegoats for problems from job losses to denied college applications to (to use a more extreme example) plane crashes. The people advocating for change are young, meaning more likely to be non-White and meaning more likely to be in college. It overlaps.
Trump promises to stand in their way. So does Heritage’s Roberts; his revolution will reshape government to muffle popular will, sure, but it also recognizes the centrality of social issues, like the use of “Ms.” instead of “Mrs.”



America has for decades been shifting toward a government in which power is distributed broadly and irrespective of identity. On the right, this is a problem; getting more people to vote, for example, is positioned as “rigging” elections since those more people are presumed to be Democrats. So we have Roberts, Trump and their revolution.
This time, though, the aim isn’t a new nation born of equality and the law. It is instead to largely reverse the trajectory of the first American Revolution, centralizing power in one leader who happens to look a lot like them.

Since a stated goal of Project 2025 is to sell all public land I’m assuming that you all plan on buying your favorite hunting/fishing/camping spot. So which have you saved up for?

They can thank Nebraska for half of it, of course, but this still stopped me in my tracks.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

Just happened so I can’t link it.

Pretty much just made Mika cry and upset the panel very much by saying something along the lines of, “Climate change is important, democracy is important, but the 57,000 miles of voters I just talked to in focus groups aren’t talking about those things at all when it comes to the upcoming election. They’re all trying to keep their head above water in this economy and that’s front and center for them.”

This of course is exactly opposite of what Mika and Sharpton and the crew have been spewing. Then he finished by calling for Biden to step aside and she cut him off and sent him packing. You could see the rage in her eyes and hear it in her voice.

Login to view embedded media

Michelle says transwomen aren't women

The fight to keep transgender athletes out of girls' and women's sports continues.

The Biden administration recently rewrote Title IX in order to give trans participants more protections, but several states blocked the ruling last month.

Former NFL reporter Michelle Tafoya joined OutKick's "Don't @ Me" on Tuesday to discuss the "insanity" of allowing trans people to compete with biological females.

"It is insane, this whole thing is insanity. Thank God for voices like J.K. Rowling and Riley Gaines and others. Apparently, you need big voices like that to keep up, to keep countering this ridiculousness," Tafoya said. "I don’t’ care if the male is intact or was born a male – they don’t belong in a women’s locker room, they don’t belong on a women’s team. They are not women. So this notion that trans women or women, it’s ridiculous, because there’s a reason you put the ‘trans’ in front of the word ‘woman,’ because you’re not a woman."

"We’re in a weird time. This is one of those lies that they want to keep propagating. ‘Trans women are real women, trans women are real women,’ and then they’ll eventually believe it. I’m not going to believe it. I have a daughter, as well, who competes in athletics. I’ve got nieces. I just care about women. I care about all girls being able to have a fair shot. When you see these girls who have been robbed of their opportunities or places on the podium, it drives me nuts. It doesn’t mean that a trans person cannot participate. It does mean trans women cannot compete against biological women. That’s all we’re saying."

Oftentimes, those who are against trans inclusion in women's sports are labeled hateful and transphobic. It happened to Gaines and the Independent Women's Forum last month, when their tour bus was vandalized.
However, Tafoya says that could not be farther from the truth.

"If you can’t compete, join the millions of other people that have come in last place in a race. But that doesn’t mean you get to change genders so you can be in third place or first place in a race. That ain’t the way this works. It’s very simple, but apparently, we have to keep fighting these gender-ideology voices that think we’re hateful," she says.

"We’re not hateful, we’re helping women."

A federal judge blocked Biden’s Title IX rule in Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Idaho, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Indiana, Virginia and West Virginia last month.
The New Hampshire senate passed a bill back in May that would bar transgender athletes in grades 5-12 from competing against the gender they identify as.

The passing of the New Hampshire bill came a couple of weeks after Arkansas Gov. Sarah Sanders signed an executive order in response to the new Title IX regulations. Sanders said she had been "appalled" by the "attack on common sense."