And you thought it was just a group of fringe political freaks, a few retired lawyers and doctors, and an occasional teacher or farmer who read your blog.
Congrats. If no Trump lawyer was allowed to be present, and knowing that the FBI has already fabricated information in the past against him, how could an honest juror ever say that anything they find passes the "doubt" test about the possibility something was planted?
Secondly, why are the Dems so intent on getting Trump, when other candidates have a much lower risk of losing in 2024?
Your quote supports the actions of the jackbooted thugs so sure, it will get play in the elite media. I swear the Ukrainian Nazis are controlling the levers of power in the US. 8/8? They love those numbers together.
Impressive, wonderful, marvelous... I wonder if they have some cub reporter who is tasked with examining your blog everyday for potential nuggets to publish.
That's right - let's have a hard rule that specific places will never be searched - and tell everyone where they should put their criminal shit w/o fear it will be found. Makes sense to me.
The WSJ likes this post because in isolation it can be used to support their neverTrump narrative that there's nothing wrong at the FBI or in the government generally and Trump supporters are people with little understanding driven by paranoia and emotions.
I got a half dozen letters into the WSJ in the 70s-80s. The trick is make it short and amusing. They're column-inch fillers when they need an inch. I don't know if there even are column inches any longer.
Bowers v. Hardwick, decided the year before the Bork nomination, did involve a Georgia cop in the bedroom, so Joe Biden’s imagery was not merely rhetorical. Getting Anthony Kennedy onto the Supreme Court instead of Robert Bork held off the conservative assault on liberty for 33 years.
Secondly, why are the Dems so intent on getting Trump, when other candidates have a much lower risk of losing in 2024?
We see the obsession of the left with Trump right here in the comments.
Blogger jim5301 said...
That's right - let's have a hard rule that specific places will never be searched - and tell everyone where they should put their criminal shit w/o fear it will be found. Makes sense to me.
There it is. Of course he/xer assumes that Trump has "criminal shit" in his home. After all, the Deep State has been investigating him since 2015 and hasn't found anything yet so it must be in Melania's underwear drawer. The 9 hours it took was so everyone could get a sniff.
Bowers v. Hardwick, decided the year before the Bork nomination, did involve a Georgia cop in the bedroom
Bowers v. Hardwick was a facial challenge to a state law in a state where there had not been a prosecution for decades.
While the challenge followed an arrest on a sodomy charge (which was immediately dismissed), the cop's entry into the challenger's home on an expired warrant for drinking in public was itself illegal.
Why ask you? It only unnecessarily increases the cost basis per inch of content. Thus, the paper maintains profits and independence and you complete autonomy going forward. The least impact from the Heisenberg uncertainty syndrome and Schrondiger's Cat.
It's like painting. If you over work it, it gets tedious and muddy.
That's right - let's have a hard rule that specific places will never be searched - and tell everyone where they should put their criminal shit w/o fear it will be found. Makes sense to me.
Yeah. Like Sandy Berger's pants or Hillary Clinton's server.
Why can't tools like you understand the point we're making? We're opposed to the two sets of rules.
Floris said... > at least the WSJ got "emerita" right.
Isn't anyone upset that they assumed her gender? ========== WSJ should become repeat persistent AMICA in any case before USSC involving gender definitions
Althouse's commentary is always interesting and often unique to her. You can't find this stuff anywhere else.
But what's invigorating, at least to me, are all the hillbillies in her comment section. Althouse is sublimely skilled at posing questions. She provokes! It's her biggest skillset, and why I assume she was an amazing law professor. She brings out reactions and interesting thoughts from other people.
I'm not surprised that uppity-ups read the Althouse blog. I've always kind of assumed it. My feeling has always been that if you write strong criticisms of some Supreme Court opinion here, lawyers, judges, appellate judges, Supreme Court clerks, and maybe even a Justice or two might read it or hear about it.
The Althouse blog has long reminded me of The New Republic back in the day, before it went stupid. When Mickey Kaus and Fred Barnes and other interesting commentators wrote there. People used to say that they read it on Air Force One.
What made The New Republic fascinating is that you couldn't really pigeon-hole it. And you often had no idea what they would say next. The Althouse blog is like that. She has an idiosyncratic mind and her comment section is bracing because other smart and idiosyncratic people gravitate toward her blog.
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Encourage Althouse by making a donation:
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
54 comments:
Congratulations! And well deserved.
Better than Marge Sullivan’s analysis.
And you thought it was just a group of fringe political freaks, a few retired lawyers and doctors, and an occasional teacher or farmer who read your blog.
You're Yuge.
Congrats. If no Trump lawyer was allowed to be present, and knowing that the FBI has already fabricated information in the past against him, how could an honest juror ever say that anything they find passes the "doubt" test about the possibility something was planted?
Secondly, why are the Dems so intent on getting Trump, when other candidates have a much lower risk of losing in 2024?
Team A: Congratulations!
Team B: Capitalist Tool!
You do have a knack for formatting and delivering the "here's something you may have overlooked" comment. Good to see.
Brava!
WSJ Editorial Board reads the Althouse blog. Rush Limbaugh read the Althouse blog. I'm sure Tucker Carlson reads the Althouse blog.
The NYT and WaPo are afraid to read the Althouse blog. Too much truth and cruel neutrality.
Your quote supports the actions of the jackbooted thugs so sure, it will get play in the elite media. I swear the Ukrainian Nazis are controlling the levers of power in the US. 8/8? They love those numbers together.
When we were in Afghanistan the Obama administration decided that male soldiers could not search the women.
They immediately started hiding shit in their women's vaginas. The women had no choice in the matter.
We had to start bringing women out with us to search them.
It is important to remember that the people of this Regime do not actually have any principles whatsoever.
Impressive, wonderful, marvelous... I wonder if they have some cub reporter who is tasked with examining your blog everyday for potential nuggets to publish.
I feel bad for you. When the Biden Democrats start the purges, you're going to be one of the first up against the wall for opposing them.
You were warned.
I hope you got paid :)
Nice. Hope the exposure translates to additional moolah.
You're nearly famous! (Stolen from a button my sis sometimes wears because she was an extra in the first Star Trek movie.)
That's right - let's have a hard rule that specific places will never be searched - and tell everyone where they should put their criminal shit w/o fear it will be found. Makes sense to me.
The WSJ likes this post because in isolation it can be used to support their neverTrump narrative that there's nothing wrong at the FBI or in the government generally and Trump supporters are people with little understanding driven by paranoia and emotions.
I hope the check doesn't bounce.
It looks like they're mocking women.
Appropriate that after you lose yourself in the NYT you should find yourself in the WSJ.
"I hope you got paid :)"
I wasn't even asked.
While Ann didn't get paid (Fair Use doctrine), at least the WSJ got "emerita" right.
Can the WSJ now quote from the copyright infringement code?
Well we're movin' on up
To the East Side
To that dee-luxe apartment in the skyyy.
Wasn't even asked? I thought they needed your permission to quote you in their newspaper. copyright and all that.
But then I'm not a lawyer.
Anyway, good that you're getting publicity.
Congrats!
This is appropriation, nothing more than a cut and paste republication. It does not fit any of the Fair Use exceptions.
When Rush quoted from blog posts, that WAS fair use since he then used it as a spring board for his own commentary.
You found yourself? You are your writing? Or did you find your writing in the WSJ?
So many people have gone off to find themselves, and never have. At least you can now know where you are.
Now you can move on up the East Side.
WSJ shows excellent editorial judgment.
Couple years ago I was just hiking around when I kicked over a diamond.
Well done and see you on TV.
I got a half dozen letters into the WSJ in the 70s-80s. The trick is make it short and amusing. They're column-inch fillers when they need an inch. I don't know if there even are column inches any longer.
James Taranto, who is in charge of the editorial page, reads Althouse. He's how I found the blog.
You are definitely notable and quotable. Congrats!
condescension or admiration
Ann hits the bigtime. Good for her.
And you may say to yourself, "My God, what have I done?"
Bowers v. Hardwick, decided the year before the Bork nomination, did involve a Georgia cop in the bedroom, so Joe Biden’s imagery was not merely rhetorical. Getting Anthony Kennedy onto the Supreme Court instead of Robert Bork held off the conservative assault on liberty for 33 years.
Most memorable Althouse quote from way back in 2006.
“Let's take a closer look at those breasts.”
Secondly, why are the Dems so intent on getting Trump, when other candidates have a much lower risk of losing in 2024?
We see the obsession of the left with Trump right here in the comments.
Blogger jim5301 said...
That's right - let's have a hard rule that specific places will never be searched - and tell everyone where they should put their criminal shit w/o fear it will be found. Makes sense to me.
There it is. Of course he/xer assumes that Trump has "criminal shit" in his home. After all, the Deep State has been investigating him since 2015 and hasn't found anything yet so it must be in Melania's underwear drawer. The 9 hours it took was so everyone could get a sniff.
Bowers v. Hardwick, decided the year before the Bork nomination, did involve a Georgia cop in the bedroom
Bowers v. Hardwick was a facial challenge to a state law in a state where there had not been a prosecution for decades.
While the challenge followed an arrest on a sodomy charge (which was immediately dismissed), the cop's entry into the challenger's home on an expired warrant for drinking in public was itself illegal.
> at least the WSJ got "emerita" right.
Isn't anyone upset that they assumed her gender?
Why ask you? It only unnecessarily increases the cost basis per inch of content. Thus, the paper maintains profits and independence and you complete autonomy going forward. The least impact from the Heisenberg uncertainty syndrome and Schrondiger's Cat.
It's like painting. If you over work it, it gets tedious and muddy.
"I hope you got paid :)"
I wasn't even asked.
Register that copyright and sue, Statutory Damages are a hoot.
This blog runs on fair use.
That's right - let's have a hard rule that specific places will never be searched - and tell everyone where they should put their criminal shit w/o fear it will be found. Makes sense to me.
Yeah. Like Sandy Berger's pants or Hillary Clinton's server.
Why can't tools like you understand the point we're making? We're opposed to the two sets of rules.
This is more post hoc nonenforcement than fair use, which is fine.
Have you seen a bump in traffic since the WSJ used your post?
I wonder if this will lead to an influx of new posters? Have you seen an increase in traffic or posters?
Floris said...
> at least the WSJ got "emerita" right.
Isn't anyone upset that they assumed her gender?
==========
WSJ should become repeat persistent AMICA in any case before USSC involving gender definitions
James Taranto also turned me on to Althouse. It had to be over 12 years ago because I canceled my WSJ subscription about then.
I found myself in the local paper a few times.
Unfortunately.
This blog runs on fair use.
ha ha ha
Althouse's commentary is always interesting and often unique to her. You can't find this stuff anywhere else.
But what's invigorating, at least to me, are all the hillbillies in her comment section. Althouse is sublimely skilled at posing questions. She provokes! It's her biggest skillset, and why I assume she was an amazing law professor. She brings out reactions and interesting thoughts from other people.
I'm not surprised that uppity-ups read the Althouse blog. I've always kind of assumed it. My feeling has always been that if you write strong criticisms of some Supreme Court opinion here, lawyers, judges, appellate judges, Supreme Court clerks, and maybe even a Justice or two might read it or hear about it.
The Althouse blog has long reminded me of The New Republic back in the day, before it went stupid. When Mickey Kaus and Fred Barnes and other interesting commentators wrote there. People used to say that they read it on Air Force One.
What made The New Republic fascinating is that you couldn't really pigeon-hole it. And you often had no idea what they would say next. The Althouse blog is like that. She has an idiosyncratic mind and her comment section is bracing because other smart and idiosyncratic people gravitate toward her blog.
Post a Comment