On April 21, a federal judge in Florida, Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, struck down an order by the Centers for Disease Control that mandated the wearing… Read More »The Mask Wars: Judge Mizelle Takes On the CDC
In Blog No. 265, “The Coming Trump Coup?” posted on August 8, I wrote: It may sound odd to speak of a coup by someone… Read More »Blog No. 269. The Coming Trump Coup? (Part II)
Prior to the debate, my prediction to friends was that Biden would do well, but the result would be inconclusive. That is probably about how it… Read More »Special Bulletin: The Debate
Since Bulletin No. 6 of the Trump New Lows Tracker was posted on February 12, there has been a tsunami of New Lows. Many of… Read More »Trump New Lows Tracker. Bulletin No. 7 (Nos. 23-33)
Whenever it appears that the saga of the Trump administration cannot grow more bizarre, a voice is heard to say, much in the fashion of… Read More »Blog No. 193. The D.C. (Un)Reality Show
The day after the shooting at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, White House Counselor Kelly Anne Conway offered the familiar response… Read More »Blog No. 161. The Sutherland Massacre and the Challenge of the AR-15
Last week was a busy one in Wobegon by the Potomac, so we thought we would settle for brief comments on the potpourri of happenings.Read More »Special Bulletin Short Takes: DHS Funding, Netanyahu, Ferguson, and King v. Burwell
On June 30, The Supreme Court issued an opinion in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius (collectively Hobby Lobby) invalidating regulations under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that require that insurance provided by employers cover a broad range of contraceptive medications and devices. The employers in each case objected to coverage for four specific types of contraceptives that they consider to be abortifacients, i.e., causing an abortion. The employers claimed that the requirement to provide that coverage infringed their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). A five-justice majority of the Court agreed in an opinion by Justice Alito. The immediate controversy over the decision was quickly heightened when, three days later,the Court entered a preliminary stay in Wheaton College v. Burwell relieving Wheaton, a Christian college, of complying with an alternative procedure that the Court had appeared to endorse in Hobby Lobby.Read More »Blog No. 42. Contraceptive Confusion: The Puzzlements of Hobby Lobby and Wheaton
The recent decision of the Supreme Court in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission has once again focused attention – often outrage – on the quagmire of campaign finance law. In McCutcheon, Chief Justice Roberts observed that many people “would be delighted to see fewer television commercials touting a candidate’s accomplishments or disparaging an opponent’s character.” I count myself among the people Roberts described. Nevertheless, it can be argued that extravagant political spending is more of an cultural irritant than the fundamental threat to democracy that it is sometimes claimed to be. In any event, it may be helpful to put the McCutcheon case in context and highlight briefly some of the key issues and Supreme Court decisions
Read More »Blog No. 34 McCutcheon and the Quagmire of Campaign Finance
On January 3 and 4, The New York Times printed a trilogy of pieces – two articles and an op-ed column – that many RINOs would find acutely depressing. The first article was titled “Access to Abortion Falling as States Pass Restrictions ” and the second was “Banished for Questioning the Gospel of Guns.” The op-ed, by Charles M. Blow, was titled “Indoctrinating Religious Warriors.” The pieces were unrelated in that each addressed a separate subject, but they shared a common thread: the influence of the far right in the Republican Party.Read More »Blog No. 25. Abortion, Guns and Evolution.