Miami breaking up with spring breakers….


Can’t say I blame them for these out of control youts coming to town and acting like out of control a holes.

Self-help author Marianne Williamson announced she was unsuspending her 2024 presidential campaign, weeks after previously suspending it.

In a video statement on social media, Williamson said she returned to the race because she feels President Biden is a vulnerable candidate against former President Trump.

Williamson wrote, “As of today, I am unsuspending my campaign for the presidency of the United States,”

“I had suspended it because I was losing the horse race. But something so much more important than the horse race is at stake here, and we must respond,” she continued.

“Right now, we have a fascist standing at the door. Everybody’s all upset about it. Well, we should be upset about it. But we’re not going to defeat the fascist by–well, by what? What is President Biden offering?” she asked her followers.

She pressed, “What is he saying beyond, ‘You know, the economy is doing really well.’?”

Williamson declared, “We’re still in this. Let’s do this. This is serious.”

She added, “We need to say to the American people, ‘we see your pain,’ and we need to say to Donald Trump, ‘we see your B.S.’”

Williamson had originally suspended her campaign in February without endorsing another candidate.

This is her second run for president as a Democrat, having challenged Biden and others in the 2024 primary.

She joins Rep. Dean Phillips as prominent Democrats attempting to challenge Biden’s reelection bid.

Iowa has had the Conference Player of the Year the last three years. Does Clark make it 4? If not, who?

I've cued this video to the 2-minute opening statement by Chase , one of 2 Libertarian candidates on stage for this "also ran" debate. It's my feeling that he gives a pretty good summary of the traditional libertarian position on a variety of issues.

What do you think? How much do you agree with the general stances he articulates?

Login to view embedded media

The question of whether states can disqualify Donald Trump for having “engaged in insurrection” wasn’t particularly difficult for the Supreme Court — as expected. The court ruled unanimously Monday that states can’t enforce that clause of the 14th Amendment against federal and presidential candidates, in part because allowing them to do so would be chaotic.


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

But then five justices decided to make the broader decision difficult indeed. They did so in a way that the court’s left flank seemed to regard with more than raised eyebrows.
If the court wanted to present a united front now that it is deciding some crucial and contentious Trump-related issues, it failed. And now the situation practically screams: What is going on behind closed doors at the court?

One section in particular stands out from Monday’s decision in Trump v. Anderson.


ADVERTISING

“Even though ‘[a]ll nine Members of the Court’ agree that this independent and sufficient rationale resolves this case,” Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in their concurrence, “five Justices go on.”

And then the key part: “They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy.”
Just to underscore, the “petitioner” is Trump. The liberal justices were saying their colleagues went on to decide “novel” issues “to insulate” Trump.
You can parse that all day. But it sure sounds as if they’re saying that insulating Trump was, at least in part, the purpose of the court’s going beyond the basic question.

To recap the decision: The five majority justices ruled not just that states can’t disqualify Trump — Colorado, in this case — but that the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment can’t be enforced against a federal candidate without Congress laying out a process. It raised the bar significantly for Trump or anyone else ever being disqualified, particularly given how gridlocked Congress is.


Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that the court needn’t have decided such larger issues, which weren’t before the court.
4 takeaways from the Supreme Court’s ruling on Trump and 14th Amendment
But while Barrett tried to downplay her disagreement and emphasize the overall unanimous decision, Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson went in a different direction. It seems their concurrence was at one point labeled a partial dissent, and that makes all kinds of sense when you look at its content.

It’s one thing to say that the opinion has the effect of insulating Trump; it’s another to say that it was done “to insulate” him.
Justices, of all people, choose their words carefully. And some experts regard this choice as conspicuous, suggesting the three liberal justices were flagging a perceived political motivation.
“It is an unusually frank statement, calling the majority politically motivated and seeking to protect one individual,” said Tonja Jacobi, a Supreme Court scholar at Emory University Law School. She added: “Usually they say something like that in more coded terms.”


Lawrence Baum, a scholar at Ohio State University who has written books about how justices operate, noted that the three justices simply could have criticized the court for insulating itself and not invoked Trump.

“It’s reasonable to think that the justices in the majority didn’t want to have to deal with potential disqualification in any subsequent case, especially a case coming close to (or after) the November election,” Baum said. “Their opinion serves that purpose very well.
“But the dissenters could have left it at that, so their ‘and petitioner’ is significant. That does have an edge to it, with what may be an implication of partisan motivations.”
The three justices cast a harsh spotlight on the majority in other ways, too.
For instance, they began with a quote from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., when he argued in 2022’s Dobbs v. Jackson for a more restrained approach that didn’t overturn Roe v. Wade. “If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more,” Roberts wrote. The clear suggestion was that Roberts wasn’t following his own advice.



They also characterized the justifications for the new standard as woeful — calling them “gratuitous” “musings.” One such justification was a lower-court decision from then-Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase that the liberal justices noted wasn’t binding precedent. Another justification cited by the majority was disputed comments from a key figure in the drafting of the 14th Amendment, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, about whether the insurrection clause needed legislation to be enforced.
What to make of it?
Certainly, the concurring justices might have worried about the future implications of what the five majority justices did — both in raising the bar for disqualifying an insurrectionist and in what it could mean for how other amendments are to be enforced. The decision could create chaos if there’s a real congressional effort to disqualify Trump at some point.



But particularly given the “to insulate” line, it’s difficult to separate this dispute from the court’s other Trump-related decisions. Just a week ago, the court took up Trump’s immunity claim despite an appeals court ruling emphatically against him. The move further delayed Trump’s election-subversion trial date — which was initially set for Monday — and rendered a verdict before the 2024 election unlikely.
The court’s decision to take up the case was an apparent win for Trump in and of itself. And now, just a week later in another case, we have three justices suggesting the court had just bent over backward to insulate him.

One last night took the life of a 16 year old girl. Douglas and Grand right off Locust. Used to live on that court with some buddies waaaayyyy back in the day csb. Gonna be a long summer

I get that Caitlin complaining to the officials can be off putting, but I do not see where she gets the reputation as a flop queen from her haters. She used to fall down after every drive to the basket to try and sell a foul, but I haven't noticed it as much for awhile. Perhaps I'm blind but I see her compared to soccer and NBA players who act like they got shot when there is no contact at all. The collision with the fan and now bumping into McMahon seem to be the only evidence of "flopping" against her. What am I missing?

I dont take any games for granted. I remember the refs letting Creighton mug the hawk women at the end of 2022.

But if games go to form Iowa vs Indiana is set up for Saturday. I didnt know Holmes has had a lot of knee issues, vaguely remember it last year or two years ago. But she when down Sunday landing it is said on her surgery repaired knee. Then her backup sprained her ankle late in the game and had to be helped off per the Indy papers. And we all know how bad a bad sprain can be to recover from.

The Hawks are without Molly but we will see how the IU situation plays out. We will see what IU has in the quarterfinals.

Show audio player
A 94-year-old man died Monday after he went under a pile of soybeans at a grain bin at a southwest Iowa farm.
Robert Wayne Smith was pronounced dead at the farm at Iowa Highway 184 and 290th Avenue about four miles southeast of Tabor and three miles east of Randolph, the Fremont County Sheriff’s Office said in a press release.

According to the release, it appeared that Smith was helping unload soybeans from the bin with a grain vacuum. Smith’s son went to move the semitrailer truck that would be used to haul the beans. When Smith’s son came back to the bin, he found Smith under the beans.


The Sheriff’s Office said Smith’s body is being sent to the Iowa Office of the State Medical Examiner in Ankeny to determine the cause of death.

In addition to Fremont County sheriff’s deputies, Tabor Fire and Rescue, Randolph Community Fire Department and Sidney Volunteer Fire and Rescue also were at the scene.

​

The agriculture industry ranks among the most hazardous industries, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In 2021, the CDC, citing statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, reported there were 20 injury deaths per 100,000 workers in the agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting industry. Almost two-thirds of those deaths happened to workers age 55 or older.
The agency reported the injury death rate for all U.S. industries is 3.6 deaths per 100,000 workers.

Have you ever noticed it. I think it is as much habit as anything. right at the end of the 3rd qtr Sunday IU sank a trey with about .5 seconds left and Clark under the basket threw up her arms and hands. I have seen this many times. She is just a big time competitor.

I wonder if we asked her mom and dad about this maybe CC was throwing up her hands since she was 2 or 3

Maybe she learned it playing with her brothers and the guys!!!!

So far we’ve seen Maya Moore, Lynette Woodard and Jake from State Farm. Anyone there seen anyone else? Seems like the kind of game Ashton and Mila would maybe show up.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@The Tradition interviewing his first disabled HROT member.

Login to view embedded media

It is great to be an Iowa Wrestling fan.

Go Hawks!

I haven't seen any notifications

Caitlin Clark inks endorsement deal with fieldhouse namesake Gainbridge

I think the whole "Caitlin will take a pay cut in the WNBA" myth has already been largely debunked, but this is just further evidence.

I think when we look back at these times, I think something weird we will all point to is how many people made recordings complaining about stuff while sitting in their cars. What has caused this phenomenon? Will it continue? Why is it a thing?

That said…here’s one.
Login to view embedded media

I can't help but wonder every time I see another shutout from Kershaw if we are witnessing a pitcher who will go down in history as one of the 5 or so best pitchers ever. While some focus on a couple of bad playoff outings against St. Louis, his regular season dominance is the best we have seen in awhile, and he appears to be getting even better.

His career ERA at age 28 is sub-2.40, his FIP (fielding independent pitching) is an insane 2.36, and his K/9 and K/BB are out of this world. Additionally, when you watch the guy, you wonder how he ever gives up a hit.

For those of you who have followed baseball longer and closer than I -- how does Kershaw stack up with Nolan Ryan, Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez, etc.?

80% of Americans don't go to Church anymore so I'm curious how GIOAT stacks up.

I like putting a roast on with the veggies, building a gravy, making homemade biscuits and just basking in the smell all day.

Big weekend of baseball. Both Auburn and Virginia are nationally ranked. Great opportunity for Iowa to make a “statement.”

Going to need superior efforts by Brecht and Morgan and some bats to wake up.

Been looking forward to this weekend for quite some time. First pitch can’t get here fast enough.

Anybody have some for sale? Or a good lead on some?