Make your best guess........

 Since it is apparent that Donald Trump will be the next President, speculation has begun as to who will be his VP.

Among the names most commonly floated among pundits and press right now are: Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, former Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), former South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy and Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/01/21/here-are-trumps-most-likely-running-mate-picks/?sh=26bb036b6501

OR maybe.......

Trump Jr. says Tucker Carlson ‘certainly’ a VP contender

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4416145-trump-jr-tucker-carlson-vp-contender/

OR could it be?

Donald Trump Jr and Ivanka Trump are among Republican voters’ top picks for the GOP presidential nomination in 2024, according to a new poll.

(The poll is four years old, but would anyone be surprised if the numbers are close to the same?)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/04/donald-trump-jr-ivanka-trump-2024-presidential-election-poll

So.............

AND give us your best suggestion of who Trump should pick for VP, or who you think he will pick.

About a possible USSC power grab: Autocracy vs. plutocracy-theocracy?

The Nation reports its analysis of the likely flow of power if the USSC decide to gut the power of federal agencies. Like I’ve commented before, the situation at present seems to be one where the USSC takes power to build and defend a corrupt authoritarian single-party state vs the autocrat Trump who is out for power for himself. The two seem to me to be on a collision course. TN writes:

We Are Witnessing the Biggest Judicial Power Grab Since 1803

During a major hearing this week, the conservative justices made clear they’re about to gut the federal government’s power to regulate—and take that power for themselves

The Supreme Court heard two consolidated cases yesterday that could reshape the legal landscape and, with them, the country. The cases take on Chevron deference—the idea that courts should defer to executive agencies when applying regulations passed by Congress. They’re the most important cases about democracy on the court’s docket this year, and I say that knowing full well that the court is also set to decide whether a raving, orange criminal can run again for president, and whether former presidents are immune from prosecution for their crimes in the first place.

That’s because what conservatives [sigh, they are not conservatives, they are authoritarians] on the court are quietly trying to do is pull off the biggest judicial power grab since 1803, when it elevated itself to be the final arbiter of the Constitution in Marbury v. Madison. They’re trying to place their unelected, unaccountable policy preferences ahead of the laws made by the elected members of Congress or rules instituted by the president. If conservatives get their way, elections won’t really matter, because courts will be able to limit the scope of congressional regulation and the ability of presidents to enforce those regulations effectively. And the dumbest justice of all, alleged attempted rapist Brett Kavanaugh, basically said so during oral arguments.

I’m contractually obligated to tell you that the cases were technically about fees that fisheries are required to pay to federal observers. But all the justices talked about was Chevron deference. Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor even bothered to mention the fish, three hours and 20 minutes into a three-and-a-half-hour hearing. 

Justice Katenji Brown Jackson also brought up what I think should be the dispositive point: She said that getting rid of Chevron deference was “impractical and chaotic.” It’s hard to emphasize this point enough. Without Chevron deference, every single agency rule is likely to be challenged in court by some disaffected party. And with no standard other than what judges think the policy should be, we’re going to end up with wildly different rulings about the same regulation, depending on which lower court (and especially which Trump judge) hears the case.  

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and Justice Elena Kagan brought up the thousands and thousands of cases (over 17,000, according to briefs submitted to the court) that have been decided on Chevron grounds over the past 40 years. Potentially all of them could be up for re-argument should the court overrule Chevron. The conservative super lawyer Paul Clement, who was arguing against Chevron deference, promised this wouldn’t happen, but his reasoning was hypocritically thin. He said courts would still respect the precedents that happened under Chevron, even as he was arguing out of the other side of his mouth that the court should ignore the very precedent set by Chevron. His argument reduces to: “The leopards we unleash will only eat the right faces.”

TN explains that the term “Chevron deference” comes from a 1984 case, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Counsel. There, a provision of the Clean Air Act required manufacturing plants to get permits before increasing toxic emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency made a rule, pursuant to the Clean Air Act, that allowed some of these industrial plants to increase emissions in certain cases without a permit, and environmental groups sued. The USSC held that the EPA had the authority to make the rule and that the courts should “defer” to the judgment of executive agencies when acts of Congress are ambiguous or plausibly allow the agencies to make additional regulations.

As we all know by now, thanks to DP (me) harping on it so often, most of what Congress writes and passes is incoherent, ambiguous blither. With sloppy laws being common, Chevron deference amounted to a massive shift in power to federal agencies with professional and expert bureaucrats trying to figure out what Congress actually wanted and how to implement whatever it was based on their expertise. Congress does not have such expertise. And now that Congress is gridlocked and incapable of functioning, one can expect matters to worsen.** It is dominated by idiot, self-serving politicians concerned mostly with elections and re-elections.

** TN summarized it nicely like this: 

What [justice Neil Gorsuch] understands is that Chevron deference is the key to running a modern administrative state. Congress is going to pass only so many laws (even fewer in times of government gridlock). Those laws are going to have ambiguity and gaps, because of both the political deals that are made to get the laws passed and Congress’s general incompetence. Chevron deference allows the executive agencies to fill in those gaps. Without it, only the courts can do that—and in many cases, those gaps won’t get filled at all. Without executive agencies with robust powers, it will be easier for companies to pollute the air and water, billionaires to cheat on their taxes, tech bros to monopolize markets, and mass shooters to buy restricted guns and ammunition.

That’s the world, and the power, Neil Gorsuch wants. .... That’s not a democracy, that’s a juristocracy, where our votes are suggestions until the judicial machine tells us what laws we’re allowed to have.

Kleptocratic autocracy vs kleptocratic plutocracy-theocracy

As best I can tell, if the USSC guts Chevron deference, the court will have to shoot down Trump’s run at dictatorship. In that case, kleptocratic plutocracy-theocracy will be ascendant and power will probably consolidate itself in that political framework. If Chevron is left intact, I suspect the USSC will probably let Trump off the hook and allow him to form a kleptocratic dictatorship. I think the former is more likely than the latter, but I just don’t have a feel of the odds for either outcome. 

Obviously that is just my speculation. This could play out lots of different ways. Specifically all the elites could come to a power-sharing agreement in an outcome that is partly autocratic, partly plutocratic, partly Christian theocratic and fully kleptocratic. All parties involved will vehemently deny my speculations and say they are just humble, honest servants only doing what is constitutional and good for America, the American people and the whole world. So, don’t look to the elites to be even a little bit honest about any of this. 

News bit 'n chunk: Clarence Thomas investigation??; Tax data leaker gets whacked

From the Snowball’s Chance Files: Raw Story reports:

“Highly unusual”: Body that governs federal courts 

hints at Clarence Thomas investigation

At the behest of an anti-corruption watchdog group, the Judicial Conference of the United States (JCUS) has issued a report suggesting that it may be conducting a rare investigation into Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.

Earlier this week, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) issued an update on its request to the JCUS to publish its Report of the Proceedings from its September 2023 meeting, arguing that “public interest” necessitated information on efforts to have Justice Thomas referred to the Department of Justice for alleged violations of financial disclosure laws. The JCUS’ report only said there was an “ongoing review of public written allegations of errors or omissions in a filer’s financial disclosure reports,” but the CLC viewed that as a significant development.  

Even though the JCUS — whose membership consists of the chief justice of each federal circuit court, the Chief Judge of the Court of International Trade and a US district judge from each circuit — is charged with regulating judicial ethics, it’s unable to impeach judges or remove them from the bench. However, it does have the power to refer judges to the DOJ for investigation that can potentially lead to civil penalties.

The statistical analysis division of my minions have analyzed this matter upon my polite request (at gunpoint). The supercomputer worked the equations. It barfed up a result indicating that that any meaningful action against Thomas The Corrupt Grifter and Fibbing Liar from CLC, JCUS and/or the DoJ is in the Snowball’s Chance in Hell category, i.e., less than 0.1%.

________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

The USA Today reports:

DOJ: Ex-IRS employee who leaked Trump's tax returns 

intentionally got job to disclose records

A former Internal Revenue Service contractor, who leaked tax information about Donald Trump and other wealthy individuals to news organizations, got his job to intentionally to spread the confidential records, according to Justice Department prosecutors.

Charles Edward Littlejohn, 38, of Washington, pleaded guilty in October to unauthorized disclosure of tax return and return information. U.S. District Judge Ana Reye scheduled sentencing for Jan. 29. Prosecutors recommended Tuesday he receive the maximum sentence of five years in prison.

Littlejohn evaded IRS protocols to detect and prevent large downloads from government computers and then saved the tax returns on multiple devices, including an iPod, according to court records. He also obstructed the investigation by deleting and destroying evidence of his disclosures, according to court records.

ProPublica reported in 2021 on a trove of tax-return data about the wealthiest Americans. It found the 25 richest people legally pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than many ordinary workers do.

“And the human impact of Defendant's crimes is enormous,” prosecutors wrote. “Many victims have come forward, expressing anger and embarrassment about the exposure of their personal financial information. Worse, it appears that the harm may continue indefinitely” because stories continue to be published.

According to the IRS, on April 5, 1870, IRS Commissioner Delano forbade tax assessors from furnishing lists of taxpayers for publication. On July 14, 1870, Congress passed a revenue act stating, “no collector … shall permit to be published in any manner such income returns or any part thereof, except such general statistics …” Thus, up until 1870, tax returns were public records.

Some history according to Professor Pomp (his real name) about the the debate and law surrounding public access to individual tax returns: 

To fund the Civil War, the Revenue Act of 1862 imposed an income tax on individuals. At a time which predated reliable mail, the public was notified of their tax liabilities through newspaper advertisements.

In 1870, when the income tax had become unpopular, Congress prohibited the publication of tax returns. Public disclosure was revisited in 1913; by 1918 the public was permitted to view lists of individual taxpayers, though this information was not allowed to be published.

Fueled by corruption concerns, the Revenue Act of 1924 required the disclosure of names, addresses, and tax liabilities. The New York Times published the taxes paid by thousands of persons. In 1926, however, the law was changed due to privacy concerns and the failure of the disclosures to uncover tax evasion. Only the taxpayer’s name and address, but not their tax liability, could be published.

A resurgence in favor of disclosure emerged in 1934, during the Great Depression. The tax liability (as well as name, address, gross income, deductions, net income, and credits) of taxpayers was made public in an attempt to deter tax evasion. But critics of this approach, concerned that compromised taxpayers would be targeted by criminals and con artists, managed to repeal the law.

The law remained unchanged until, in the aftermath of Watergate, Congress enacted IRC section 6103.

Qs: So, is Littlejohn a patriotic hero or a socialist scumbag? Should tax returns once again be made public records, at least for people having a net worth of, say, $10 million?

What!!?? That incompetent 

jackass makes how much??

PS: On some reflection, I vote for making tax returns public once again, just to kill off some of the rot.

News bits: Christian ‘charity’; Vitamin & mineral science bit; Gutless Democrats; Etc.

A newspaper in Spokane Washington reports:

More than 200 Spokane churches were asked to open their doors to 

homeless people during dangerously cold weather — four agreed

It’s the same every year.

A dangerous cold snap is forecast. Hundreds of unhoused people are in danger of freezing to death, and there isn’t a clear plan to keep them warm. With the clock ticking, the city scrambles.

Spokane Mayor Lisa Brown criticized the city’s perpetual lack of planning during her run for office last year, and pledged to put a better system in place. But when a blast of arctic air descended on Spokane and brought temperatures below zero during her second week in office, she, too, was forced to scramble at the last minute.

The city’s efforts this year were also aided by a small group of volunteers and homeless service providers who had spent months working behind the scenes on an ambitious project to keep people from freezing.

The plan was simple: Open the churches.

The idea of using churches to house homeless people during cold weather has been long in the making. In theory, it makes sense: Hundreds of Spokane churches sit empty every night. With city shelter space consistently below what's needed, why not ask the faith community to help?

But making that vision a reality has been an uphill battle.

That speaks for itself. Repeal tax break privileges for churches. 

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition reports on some new data from people who participated in this 2 year COSMOS study (COcoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study):

Abstract

Background

Longer effects of multivitamin-mineral (MVM) supplementation on late-life cognitive function remain untested using in-person, detailed neuropsychologic assessments. Furthermore, insufficient evidence exists for healthcare providers to recommend daily MVM supplements to prevent cognitive decline.

Conclusions

In COSMOS-Clinic, daily MVM supplementation leads to a significantly more favorable 2 year change in episodic memory. The meta-analysis within COSMOS cognitive substudies indicates that daily MVM significantly benefits both global cognition and episodic memory. These findings within the COSMOS trial support the benefits of a daily MVM in preventing cognitive decline among older adults.

That's interesting. Maybe there is something good about taking daily vitamins and minerals. All this time and there has been insufficient research to get this information.

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Gutless Democrats: A sickening WaPo opinion describes the cowardice of Senate Democrats:

This country has no more devoted a public servant than Judge Todd Edelman of the D.C. Superior Court. While other law graduates joined white-shoe firms, Edelman, a friend of mine since college, spent years as a public defender, as a labor union lawyer and, for the last 14 years, on the D.C. bench, where he is now presiding judge of the civil division.

President Barack Obama nominated him in 2016 to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. But this was during then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s blockade of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, and Edelman, caught up like other nominees in the Republicans’ refusal to move Obama’s judicial picks, never got a vote, or even a hearing.

President Biden nominated Edelman to the same court in 2022. Republicans struck again, this time with an ugly, Willie-Horton style smear campaign. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) fabricated an outrageous lie, telling the Senate Judiciary Committee that a man Edelman released in a pretrial hearing “went on to murder — to murder — an 11-year-old.” In reality, the man in question hadn’t murdered anyone, but Blackburn badly distorted the facts of a case to suggest that Edelman was to blame for a child’s death.

This time, Democrats controlled the Senate. They could have, and should have, called out Blackburn’s nonsense and confirmed Edelman. Instead, they cowered. They shied from defending Edelman, or even pointing out the facts; .... The months dragged on, and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) refused to schedule a vote before the Senate recessed for Christmas break. Two weeks ago, the White House pulled the plug rather than resubmit the nomination for the new session of Congress.  

We live in a world in which MAGA types such as Blackburn use disinformation as a matter of course. That’s a given. But if Democrats are so cowardly that they won’t fight back and won’t answer the lies with truth, then the battle to preserve our democracy is already lost no matter who wins at the polls.

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Jamelle Bouie writes an opinion for the NYT (whole opinion is here not behind a paywall):

Jan. 6 Cannot Go Down the Memory Hole

Letting Trump Off the Hook Will Change the Shape of History 

But despite this unambiguous evidence of insurrection, there is a concerted effort — either out of skepticism or denial — to present the events of Jan. 6, including the schemes that led up to the attack on the Capitol, as something else. The legitimate protest of an exuberantly disappointed group of ordinary American voters, perhaps, or — in the rendering of Trump’s most devoted apologists — a last-ditch effort to save the Republic itself from the illegitimate grasp of Joe Biden and the Democratic Party.

It is tempting to say that the facts contained in the Jan. 6 committee report will stand on their own, that the body of evidence is simply too great to sustain a posture of skepticism and denial. But facts are mediated to us through our beliefs, experiences and interests. Most people do not and will not believe facts that cut against those beliefs, experiences and interests.

In the case of the Ku Klux Klan testimony,** it was in the political, social or ideological interests of many Americans — from partisans of the Democratic Party to leading members of the national press — to downplay the significance of the testimony. The same is true today of the facts gathered by the Jan. 6 committee.

** From the Senate Joint Select Committee to Inquire into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States, an 1871 investigation of reports of vigilante violence against freed people and their white allies in the states of the former Confederacy. The committee released its report as an 8,000 page, 13-volume collection of testimony from 600 witnesses.

In other words, the world in which the attack on the Capitol of the United States by the vengeful followers of a defeated president is just ordinary politics gone a little wild is a world in which Trump and his rioters eventually won.

In my opinion, Mr. Bouie understands the human condition and our political situation pretty well. 

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________