07-18-2018 06:46:32 AM -0700
07-17-2018 11:22:41 AM -0700
07-17-2018 09:01:59 AM -0700
07-17-2018 07:05:48 AM -0700
07-16-2018 03:35:09 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.


Live Blog

Here is your live blog for the day.

Catholic bishop disagrees with USCCB on Janus v. AFSCME.

A spokesman for the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) lamented the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Janus v. AFSCME as an anti-union ruling. This Illinois bishop eviscerated that argument, defending the Court's ruling.

Many unions use "agency fees" to promote abortion. Janus ruled that unions cannot force non-members to pay these fees against their will.

Well, that's awkward.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) isn't in Missouri, but her challenger wants to debate. She has nothing to worry about, right?

Few things I enjoy more than seeing Democrats get bitten in their you-know-whats by their identity politics:

WaPo:

The Democrats’ first mistake was to launch unprecedented filibusters against President George W. Bush’s appellate court nominees, starting with his 2001 nomination of Miguel Estrada for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The D.C. Circuit is considered the country’s second-most important court, having produced more Supreme Court justices than any other federal court. Estrada was a supremely qualified nominee who had the support of a clear majority in the Senate. His confirmation should have been easy.

But Democrats killed his nomination. Why? According to internal strategy memos obtained by the Wall Street Journal, they blocked Estrada at the request of liberal interest groups who said Estrada was “especially dangerous” because “he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.” Democrats did not want Republicans to put the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court. Instead, two years after his nomination, they made Estrada the first appeals court nominee in history to be successfully filibustered. It was an extraordinary breach of precedent.

Are we all clear? It is "historic" when the Democrats nominate someone who is a minority to a position for the first time but "dangerous" if the GOP does it.

Again, liberals are bigoted and only care about minorities who vote according to orders.

Excellent. I've really been hoping to increase the speed with which I can waste my time.

Is it possible to get an entire Right Angle segment out of an eight-second Twitter video?

Yes, it is -- provided it's an eight-second Twitter video involving an exploding watermelon, Independence Day, and being real Americans.