Trump supporters who want to defend his lack of response to the Russian bounty reports should use the same compelling argument offered by our friend raindrop last week defending Reagan’s ignorance during the AIDS years: he was “immensely uncomfortable talking about it” and “nobody was really surprised.”

The trolly trolls seem especially triggered today

@5
Because there's a lag time of about one month between initial reporting of cases - some patients are hospitalized later, and then several weeks later the patients recover and return home, or die.

@ 5 must be using an early April Swedish assessment of "herd immunity."

Han is the new Hickory.

@11
BS, there was not sufficient public warning and education during the AIDS years since the government wasn't doing much if any in that direction. The trump administration approach to COVID 19 started with the same dismissive attitude, hoping the disease will remain confined to liberal municipalities, killing only people who "deserve it."

@ 13
You would expect similar talk coming from Reagan in 1982. Yet it was only 1987 when he said what he said, once the epidemic was raging and there was no way to ignore it.
Even then he used the opportunity to put down others.

By "must-win Senate race," do you mean the primary (progressive v. establishment Dem), or the general in November? Seems to me that te ONLY thing that matters is which of the Dem candidates has the best chance to be elected in November. Remember that even a Dem who you don't think is progressive enough counts towards detemining which party is in the majority and therefore gets to choose leadership (i.e., finally make the Senate's Ancient Turtle population extinct).

Hey look a buttload of comments disappeared. Funny thing, that.

@ 28
Yes, and they shouldn’t have been. Those voodoo science comments were quite pathetic, yet part of a useful discussion.
Could be the stranger’s retroactive action, tackling what may be deemed as abusive comments after years of neglect.

CMDwannabe @9, I totally approve of Slog's aggressive attempts to rid these threads of the relentless, prolific trolls who attempt a hostile takeover of the news threads. There's a distinction between useful discussion and a concerted attempt to derail discussion and reduce everything to a shouting match where you can't keep up with the lies.

This is why it's critical to distinguish between the trolls and the legitimate, sincere right-wingers like David in Shoreline. I love having David in Shoreline on these threads because he's the real deal and helps facilitate a real discussion.

@29 - I kind of agree. Deleting comments without a great reason makes it really hard to follow a discussion. Given that I did not see them I have no idea whether they were abusive in some way or just dumb.

This SCOTUS decision makes a great argument for banning all public funding of private education, BTW.

For God so loved the world
That he gave his only begotten president Ronald Reagan
That whoever shall worship his presidency and his First Lady Nancy
Shall never perish, but have everlasting life

Amen

Correction. CMDwannabe @9 = CMDwannabe @29

cressona- those comments claimed monogamy and abstinence as (probably the only form of) sex education to be scientific.
At least there was no attempt to sell us Reagan as a gift from god.

The celebration of Roberts siding with the liberal court on a few issues is because of process and not the legal merits of the argument. It’s basically “you filed this wrong or didn’t process the rule change in accordance with the law”. In a couple of cases he gave guidance on what to do so that the case would be sucessful.

@32 - I guess I missed my chance to nail Ronnie up on the cross.

The ruling did not "secure abortion rights," you idiot.

Its hard to find right wing/conservative commentary on these Supreme Court rulings that isn't just more baying at the moon about treachery and dark mutterings that "they" must have something on Roberts and tendrils of the QAnon-o-sphere. But when you can find some, you'll see a lot of references to Article 3 Section 2 of the constitution, which includes the following:

"In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

I don't think Congress has ever actually done this - explicitly made an exception or regulation that would disallow the Supreme Court to rule on legislation. But this is what they think should happen - pass a law banning abortion and tell the USSC to fuck off. Even Clarence Thomas would have a hard time arguing the body of the Constitution is unconstitutional. But obviously, two can play at that game and if it became routine, the courts would be written out of government forevermore.

So that's what Roberts is desperate to avoid.

There’s a CHOP livestream?

The Roberts ruling that always struck me as bizarre was his upholding the ACA based on an interpretation of the penalty as a tax. I was personally thrilled, as it saved the asses of potentially millions of people who'd have almost surely lost their coverage otherwise, though I still don't know that I really see the angle, to be totally honest (and I certainly didn't delve too heavily into the ruling, nor am I especially well versed in legal-ese.) But that was pretty shocking.

@34 - doesn't sound like I missed much.

@22: That would be the "abstinence and monogamy" practiced by every slaveowner who raped his slaves(Thomas Jefferson, et.al.,)?

I'm sure no scholar of Supreme Court jurisprudence, but my sense at the time was that if the court had overturned the PP/ACA on the basis of the complaint, it would have undermined the entire regulatory state reaching right back to the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. Which was maybe what the plaintiffs would have liked, but it was a bridge too far for Roberts.

So he made something else up out of whole cloth. He did much the same thing when he gutted the Voter's Rights Act a couple years ago.

"Speaking of the [NY] Times, they're uppercasing the B in Black now: Many people are saying the move will more than make up for all the racist shit the paper has done in the past."

I wouldda guessed 'most' people but Well played.

Speaking of Big Bs:
From our Constitution:*

"In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Ah. So That's where I got my Malady.
And here I thought it was just a
Twitchy pinky finger (or 2).

Thanks, Jefferson, Et Al!

*"just a Damn
Piece o' PAPER!"
--noted Constitutional Scholar
junior gee dubya Bush
on our Constitution

great comments, Alden
Roberts is setting the Court up
for a trumpf fambly Takeover like
they had in Germany a century ago.

When this Election goes South
Roberts is gonna be at the Head of it.

I see Minister of Truth in his very bright Future.
Unless (duh) Kavanaughtiest Maximus takes him out first.