Brian Kemper
@bwkemper.bsky.social
Attorney, father, Peloton addict, writer, and Eternal Keeper of the Final Word
Check out my novel "Everything Can Change" available on Amazon.
Check out my novel "Everything Can Change" available on Amazon.
They tell their base whatever they want and the base swallows it and thinks they're heroes.
That happens on every day ending with a "y."
That happens on every day ending with a "y."
November 11, 2025 at 3:42 PM
They tell their base whatever they want and the base swallows it and thinks they're heroes.
That happens on every day ending with a "y."
That happens on every day ending with a "y."
And it won't be hard to explain to the non-Republican base why this idea is idiotic.
November 11, 2025 at 3:40 PM
And it won't be hard to explain to the non-Republican base why this idea is idiotic.
And? Congress has to pass legislation to make this happen.
Which means Democrat support.
Won't happen.
Which means Democrat support.
Won't happen.
November 11, 2025 at 3:39 PM
And? Congress has to pass legislation to make this happen.
Which means Democrat support.
Won't happen.
Which means Democrat support.
Won't happen.
This won't make them look like heroes.
The idea won't fly even within the Republican base because the idea that people can negotiate effectively as individuals for health care as opposed to a group is ridiculous.
It won't go anywhere.
The idea won't fly even within the Republican base because the idea that people can negotiate effectively as individuals for health care as opposed to a group is ridiculous.
It won't go anywhere.
November 11, 2025 at 3:36 PM
This won't make them look like heroes.
The idea won't fly even within the Republican base because the idea that people can negotiate effectively as individuals for health care as opposed to a group is ridiculous.
It won't go anywhere.
The idea won't fly even within the Republican base because the idea that people can negotiate effectively as individuals for health care as opposed to a group is ridiculous.
It won't go anywhere.
Yes, he was an asshole with no values.
No one is disputing that.
The point is acknowledging that he was a better opposition party leader than the Democrats have been. Recognizing that is not an endorsement of the man or his political policies.
No one is disputing that.
The point is acknowledging that he was a better opposition party leader than the Democrats have been. Recognizing that is not an endorsement of the man or his political policies.
November 11, 2025 at 3:04 PM
Yes, he was an asshole with no values.
No one is disputing that.
The point is acknowledging that he was a better opposition party leader than the Democrats have been. Recognizing that is not an endorsement of the man or his political policies.
No one is disputing that.
The point is acknowledging that he was a better opposition party leader than the Democrats have been. Recognizing that is not an endorsement of the man or his political policies.
decisions where a conservative sided with the liberal Justices in a loss.
The fact that he didn't block some big achievements doesn't mean he didn't have a huge impact in blocking other things.
The fact that he didn't block some big achievements doesn't mean he didn't have a huge impact in blocking other things.
November 11, 2025 at 3:02 PM
decisions where a conservative sided with the liberal Justices in a loss.
The fact that he didn't block some big achievements doesn't mean he didn't have a huge impact in blocking other things.
The fact that he didn't block some big achievements doesn't mean he didn't have a huge impact in blocking other things.
There's only so much a minority leader can block.
And his greatest achievement was blocking the appointment of Merrick Garland to SCOTUS. He doesn't do that, there are a lot of things turning out differently.
Yes, the conservatives would still have a 5-4 majority, but there were a lot of ...
And his greatest achievement was blocking the appointment of Merrick Garland to SCOTUS. He doesn't do that, there are a lot of things turning out differently.
Yes, the conservatives would still have a 5-4 majority, but there were a lot of ...
November 11, 2025 at 2:59 PM
There's only so much a minority leader can block.
And his greatest achievement was blocking the appointment of Merrick Garland to SCOTUS. He doesn't do that, there are a lot of things turning out differently.
Yes, the conservatives would still have a 5-4 majority, but there were a lot of ...
And his greatest achievement was blocking the appointment of Merrick Garland to SCOTUS. He doesn't do that, there are a lot of things turning out differently.
Yes, the conservatives would still have a 5-4 majority, but there were a lot of ...
Yes, individuals negotiating for their own insurance have so much more negotiating power that when you're dealing with an employer or other group that is negotiating on behalf of a number of people.
FFS, just plain idiocy.
FFS, just plain idiocy.
November 11, 2025 at 2:35 PM
Yes, individuals negotiating for their own insurance have so much more negotiating power that when you're dealing with an employer or other group that is negotiating on behalf of a number of people.
FFS, just plain idiocy.
FFS, just plain idiocy.
money isn't given to the politicians but are spent separately by the PACs in support of some political cause or issue or against the opposing politician.
A huge part of the rationale is based on this distinction.
A huge part of the rationale is based on this distinction.
November 11, 2025 at 2:33 PM
money isn't given to the politicians but are spent separately by the PACs in support of some political cause or issue or against the opposing politician.
A huge part of the rationale is based on this distinction.
A huge part of the rationale is based on this distinction.
people. Also, note that other organizations, such as unions and businesses that aren't corporations have 1A rights as well.
B) People don't have the "same right" to give "unlimited amounts" to politicians. There are limits on such donations.
And Citizens United deals with PACs where the ...
B) People don't have the "same right" to give "unlimited amounts" to politicians. There are limits on such donations.
And Citizens United deals with PACs where the ...
November 11, 2025 at 2:32 PM
people. Also, note that other organizations, such as unions and businesses that aren't corporations have 1A rights as well.
B) People don't have the "same right" to give "unlimited amounts" to politicians. There are limits on such donations.
And Citizens United deals with PACs where the ...
B) People don't have the "same right" to give "unlimited amounts" to politicians. There are limits on such donations.
And Citizens United deals with PACs where the ...
A) The holding that corporations were legal entities with 1A rights was not made in Citizens United. The Courts have recognized this for over a hundred years. The reason is because corporations are owned and run by people. The speech of the corporation is speech made by ...
November 11, 2025 at 2:30 PM
A) The holding that corporations were legal entities with 1A rights was not made in Citizens United. The Courts have recognized this for over a hundred years. The reason is because corporations are owned and run by people. The speech of the corporation is speech made by ...
"led astray" not "lead astray"
November 11, 2025 at 1:55 PM
"led astray" not "lead astray"
It's hilarious when Republicans have a problem with something Trump does, but they know they can't criticize him, so they blame someone else for leading Trump astray.
But that is an implicit criticism of Trump that he is so easily lead astray or because he was the one who hired the person.
But that is an implicit criticism of Trump that he is so easily lead astray or because he was the one who hired the person.
November 11, 2025 at 1:50 PM
It's hilarious when Republicans have a problem with something Trump does, but they know they can't criticize him, so they blame someone else for leading Trump astray.
But that is an implicit criticism of Trump that he is so easily lead astray or because he was the one who hired the person.
But that is an implicit criticism of Trump that he is so easily lead astray or because he was the one who hired the person.
wasn't the Batman in Batman and Robin or confused as to why Bruce Wayne was alive again in Matt Reeves Batman.
They are just complicating the whole thing too much.
They are just complicating the whole thing too much.
November 11, 2025 at 1:23 PM
wasn't the Batman in Batman and Robin or confused as to why Bruce Wayne was alive again in Matt Reeves Batman.
They are just complicating the whole thing too much.
They are just complicating the whole thing too much.
Or, I don't know, do what they did when Craig started: reboot it.
Audiences are more than capable of figuring out that, when dealing with long-standing IP, when they are seeing a new iteration of a character.
WB wasn't concerned whether audiences would realize Christian Bale's Batman ...
Audiences are more than capable of figuring out that, when dealing with long-standing IP, when they are seeing a new iteration of a character.
WB wasn't concerned whether audiences would realize Christian Bale's Batman ...
November 11, 2025 at 1:21 PM
Or, I don't know, do what they did when Craig started: reboot it.
Audiences are more than capable of figuring out that, when dealing with long-standing IP, when they are seeing a new iteration of a character.
WB wasn't concerned whether audiences would realize Christian Bale's Batman ...
Audiences are more than capable of figuring out that, when dealing with long-standing IP, when they are seeing a new iteration of a character.
WB wasn't concerned whether audiences would realize Christian Bale's Batman ...
The comment was about him being an opposition party leader, which was more about using the ability to block legislation to achieve political ends than passing legislation.
November 11, 2025 at 12:39 PM
The comment was about him being an opposition party leader, which was more about using the ability to block legislation to achieve political ends than passing legislation.
So again this decsion is not an example of conservatives not being bound by precedent as you claimed.
November 11, 2025 at 3:23 AM
So again this decsion is not an example of conservatives not being bound by precedent as you claimed.
FFS, the liberal Justices even concurred that states don’t have the power to disqualify Presidential candidates or other holders of federal offices.
November 11, 2025 at 3:21 AM
FFS, the liberal Justices even concurred that states don’t have the power to disqualify Presidential candidates or other holders of federal offices.
legislation, but currently it hasn’t done that.
And 14A doesn’t say anything about states being able to enforce the amendment.
And 14A doesn’t say anything about states being able to enforce the amendment.
November 11, 2025 at 3:18 AM
legislation, but currently it hasn’t done that.
And 14A doesn’t say anything about states being able to enforce the amendment.
And 14A doesn’t say anything about states being able to enforce the amendment.
Congress hasn’t acted to say how an officer is held to be disqualified.
Yes, the language explains how a disqualification is removed, but it doesn’t identify how an officer is deemed disqualified in the first place.
Section V says that Congress has the power to enforce the Amendment by …
Yes, the language explains how a disqualification is removed, but it doesn’t identify how an officer is deemed disqualified in the first place.
Section V says that Congress has the power to enforce the Amendment by …
November 11, 2025 at 3:17 AM
Congress hasn’t acted to say how an officer is held to be disqualified.
Yes, the language explains how a disqualification is removed, but it doesn’t identify how an officer is deemed disqualified in the first place.
Section V says that Congress has the power to enforce the Amendment by …
Yes, the language explains how a disqualification is removed, but it doesn’t identify how an officer is deemed disqualified in the first place.
Section V says that Congress has the power to enforce the Amendment by …
Yes there does need to be for it to bind SCOTUS. FFS, you pretty much acknowledged that when you said that conservatives aren’t bound by precedent.
And yes, the language is ambiguous.
All parties to the suit agreed it was.
Further, you say Congress has a role which is what SCOTUS held.
But …
And yes, the language is ambiguous.
All parties to the suit agreed it was.
Further, you say Congress has a role which is what SCOTUS held.
But …
November 11, 2025 at 3:14 AM
Yes there does need to be for it to bind SCOTUS. FFS, you pretty much acknowledged that when you said that conservatives aren’t bound by precedent.
And yes, the language is ambiguous.
All parties to the suit agreed it was.
Further, you say Congress has a role which is what SCOTUS held.
But …
And yes, the language is ambiguous.
All parties to the suit agreed it was.
Further, you say Congress has a role which is what SCOTUS held.
But …
showing how “it was understood” by SCOTUS and other courts:
That decision was not one where SCOTUS overturned precedent or held it was not bound by it.
That decision was not one where SCOTUS overturned precedent or held it was not bound by it.
November 11, 2025 at 3:05 AM
showing how “it was understood” by SCOTUS and other courts:
That decision was not one where SCOTUS overturned precedent or held it was not bound by it.
That decision was not one where SCOTUS overturned precedent or held it was not bound by it.
Saying that conservatives are never bound by precedent is overstating it by a great deal.
Yes, there have been several instances where the current SCOTUS has overturned precedent but there have been more cases where they have follows them.
Further, there was no precedent on 14A on this issue ….
Yes, there have been several instances where the current SCOTUS has overturned precedent but there have been more cases where they have follows them.
Further, there was no precedent on 14A on this issue ….
November 11, 2025 at 3:03 AM
Saying that conservatives are never bound by precedent is overstating it by a great deal.
Yes, there have been several instances where the current SCOTUS has overturned precedent but there have been more cases where they have follows them.
Further, there was no precedent on 14A on this issue ….
Yes, there have been several instances where the current SCOTUS has overturned precedent but there have been more cases where they have follows them.
Further, there was no precedent on 14A on this issue ….
Again, under the Constitution, the President has no power to reject the results of an election.
Hell, the President has no power whatsoever with regard to the process of the election or how the results are certified.
No matter how much Trump wishes he did.
Hell, the President has no power whatsoever with regard to the process of the election or how the results are certified.
No matter how much Trump wishes he did.
November 11, 2025 at 2:36 AM
Again, under the Constitution, the President has no power to reject the results of an election.
Hell, the President has no power whatsoever with regard to the process of the election or how the results are certified.
No matter how much Trump wishes he did.
Hell, the President has no power whatsoever with regard to the process of the election or how the results are certified.
No matter how much Trump wishes he did.