09-21-2018 05:57:21 PM -0700
09-21-2018 04:06:11 PM -0700
09-20-2018 10:29:38 AM -0700
09-20-2018 08:44:42 AM -0700
09-19-2018 04:17:25 PM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.
X


Live Blog

Here is your live blog for the day.

This made me laugh:

Sounds about right.

Hat tip: AoSHQ.

THREAD.

Read the whole thing.

It was about 70,000 or so Obama-to-Trump voters who put Trump over the top in PA, WI, and MI -- so the Democrats would be wise to listen to all the thoughtful O-to-T voters they can find.

Will the Democrats listen is the question, and I'd wager it will take another shellacking or two before their ears finally perk up.

Blue wave?

Ben Shapiro offers some cautions about Judge Brent Kavanaugh:

Kavanaugh has stated that his judicial philosophy is textualist, although some commentators suggest that his textualism is not as strong as Gorsuch's.Kavanaugh, like Chief Justice Roberts, is known for working across the aisle. On the other side of the ledger, critics suggest (correctly in my view) that Kavanaugh upheld Obamacare in Sissel v. Department of Health and Human Services as well as in Seven-Sky v. Holder, in which he stated that the Obamacare penalties were actually “taxes.” Critics have also pointed to his opinion in a case regarding whether the government could compel priests to cover birth control under Obamacare; in that dissent, he held that there was a compelling government interest in providing birth control, but that the government could find less restrictive means of doing so.

I'm hearing from sources -- one of whom supported Kavanaugh's appointment to the federal bench — that he has been a huge disappointment because of his penchant for writing opinions that are as incoherent as they are twisted in their logic.

Which means he'll probably get the nod, my inner cynic is telling me.

I'm against prohibition. The 18th Amendment didn't stop anyone from drinking, but alcohol Prohibition did stop people from drinking safely, enriched the mob, and vastly enlarged Washington in ways we're still dealing with long after the 18th was repealed. Similarly, the Drug War hasn't stopped anyone from getting high, has sent a lot of nonviolent offenders into prison where they learn violence, has enriched the Cartels, corrupted our police and courts, and turned the Bill of Rights on it ear.

Let's give some small credit where it's due: Drug and alcohol abuse does create myriad social ills, so you can at least credit the prohibitionists with good intentions. They might not be very bright, given their refusal to acknowledge decades worth of failure, and they might not be staunch defenders of liberty or the Constitution -- but at least they mean well.

But people who ban straws? Useless busybodies and social irritants.