The Supreme Court Show is about to start.

Let's watch!

UPDATE: Gorsuch.

You showed a clear preference for blogging over tweeting...

... when I asked "What's the best combination of blogging and tweeting?"



That was a gratifying reinforcement of the choices I've made!

"No one has ever tried moving at Trump’s speed before."

"We expect the slow-moving traditional leader to create less 'chaos' than the entrepreneurial and disruptive leader.... The whole point of Trump’s flurry of activity is that he’s trying to create good outcomes. We don’t know if the good outcomes will pan out. All we know is that it was a bit messy at the start. Is being a bit messy a sign of a problem? Not if you’re the entrepreneurial, disruptive, candidate of change who just got elected.... If you see a pundit crying 'chaos' about Trump’s early moves, you’re probably seeing someone with no entrepreneurial management experience. In the startup world, speed has replaced intelligence whenever you can rapidly test. Doing things quickly, and adjusting as needed, often gets you to a faster/better result than planning a moonshot that has exactly one path to success."

Writes Scott Adams — observing the alternative templates of chaos and disruption.

At the Teapot Café...

... take a look around.

Photo from Winter 2010.

A "café" post is the signal to talk about whatever you want in the comments and to think about using The Althouse Amazon Portal if you've got some shopping to do. Using that link to go into Amazon gives you the superpower of sending a contribution to the enterprise known as the Althouse blog without spending any extra for things you're getting for yourself.

And yes, you can get a nice teapot at Amazon. I like this and this and this.

"Trump essentially ran against a united Democratic party, the Republican establishment, the mainstream media (both liberal and conservative) — and won."

"He was outspent. He was out-organized. He was outpolled and demonized daily as much by Republicans as Democrats. Yet he not only destroyed three political dynasties (the Clintons, Bushes, and Obamas) but also has seemingly rendered the Obama election matrix nontransferable to anyone other than Obama himself... Instead of seeing Barack Obama (both his successful two elections and his failed two terms) as the wave of the future, Democrats would be wise to reassess his electoral legacy as a unique phenomenon. In truth, Obama’s legacy is twofold: He took the party hard left, and he downsized it to a minority party of the two coasts and big cities. And then he faded off into the sunset to a multimillionaire retirement of golf and homilies... [T]he Democratic-party strategists are doubling down on boutique environmentalism and race/gender victimhood, while hoping that Donald Trump implodes in scandal, war, or depression.  They are clueless that their present rabid frenzy is doing as much political damage to their cause as is the object of their outrage."

Writes Victor David Hanson in "The Democrat Patient/Ignoring the symptoms, misdiagnosing the malady, skipping the treatment."

"Trump Promise Tracker... We’re tracking the progress of 60 pledges he made during his campaign — and whether he achieved his goals."

"It’s day 12 of the Trump administration with 1,449 days left in his term," and Trump has kept 5 promises and broken one, according to the WaPo Fact Checker. Trump has taken some action on 7 promises and not yet done anything on 47.

The broken promise is: "Impose a five-year ban on White House and congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service."

On Jan. 28, Trump signed an order that he said would impose a five-year ban on lobbying after government service by executive-branch officials. This appeared broader than the language in the contract, which said it would apply to White House officials, but it actually fails to fulfill his repeated pledge to "drain the swamp." There is no reference in an executive order to a ban on congressional officials. The five-year ban applies only to lobbying one’s former agency — not becoming a lobbyist. Moreover, Trump actually weakened some of the language from similar bans under Obama and George W. Bush, and reduced the level of transparency. Given that this action in many ways is a step backward, we will label this as a promise broken.

2 Supreme Court hopefuls — Neil Gorsuch and Thomas Hardiman — are known to be coming to Washington as we wait for Trump's announcement tonight.

Obviously, Trump wants us to tune in for the prime-time TV show. At least one of the 2 is needed for cover. But perhaps both are cover for a third person.

I remember getting tricked by George Bush the day he nominated John Roberts. I blogged:

Bush is announcing the new nominee tonight. Apparently, her name is Edith. We're just not sure what her last name is...

There were 2 Ediths...

When Sandra Day O'Connor announced her plans to retire in 2005, it left George W. Bush with his first opportunity after more than four years in office to nominate a member of the Supreme Court. First Lady Laura Bush suggested that a woman should replace O'Connor and two female judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals—Edith Brown Clement and Edith Jones...—were reportedly among the leading candidates. Clement soon emerged as the rumored choice, but after ABC News published a story on its website that Clement was not Bush's pick, the attention turned to the candidate who had become known as the "Other Edith." Bush, of course, selected John G. Roberts....

I thought my quip was so cute — "Apparently, her name is Edith. We're just not sure what her last name is..." — and I was completely faked out.

"Bob Dylan unveiled a classic country cover of Frank Sinatra's 'I Could Have Told You'..."

"... set to appear on his new triple album of American standards, Triplicate, out March 31st via Columbia."

"Triplicate" will include "Stormy Weather," "That Old Feeling," "As Time Goes By," "Imagination," "How Deep Is the Ocean," "P.S. I Love You," "The Best Is Yet to Come," "Sentimental Journey," "These Foolish Things, "You Go to My Head," "Stardust," and "Why Was I Born" — to name the 12 of the 30 songs that I know.

Maybe I know some of the others and I'd recognize them if I started to listen. For example, do I know "September of My Years"? Here's Andy Williams singing it. In 1970. No, I don't know that, and that's about the furthest thing from what I'd have paid attention to in 1970s. That's from his network TV show. That was soothing somebody. Presumably people who were maybe 20 years younger than I am right now. People got old so quickly back then. Or so it looked from my point of view at the time compared to my point of view right now.

In 1970 was the year Bob Dylan put out rock's "shittiest album ever," and then the great "New Morning," which we listened to every day, when we were sophomores in college.

My parents would have maintained at the time that Frank Sinatra was the greatest, and now I'm older than my parents were then, and Bob Dylan is singing Frank Sinatra songs.

WaPo editorial: "Democrats shouldn’t go scorched-earth on Trump’s Supreme Court nominee."

Why?

We say this not because it is contrary to the Democrats’ own best interests, though that is probably true, too: Filling the former Scalia seat won’t tip the court’s ideological balance, yet provoking Republicans to resort to the filibuster-abolishing “nuclear option” would leave Democrats disarmed of that weapon against a second Trump pick should another vacancy arise during his presidency.

Our objection is rooted, rather, in our belief that the Supreme Court confirmation process needs to be protected from partisan politics to the greatest extent possible and that a scorched-earth Democratic response to any nominee, regardless of the individual merits, would simply deepen that harmful politicization.....

The test of whether their objection is really rooted where they say it is rooted will come when/if Trump gets an opportunity to replace a liberal Justice.

But I see the loophole the WaPo editors have left for themselves:

The Supreme Court confirmation process needs to be protected from partisan politics to the greatest extent possible but we surpass that "greatest extent" if Trump is replacing a liberal Justice with anyone who's a solid conservative.

There's even an alternative path to a loophole: The core value is protecting the Supreme Court from partisan politics, nominating a solid conservative to replace a liberal threatens that value, so strong opposition to this nominee is no longer politicizing the Court but saving the Court from harmful politicization.

The stretch-pierced earlobe + snake problem.

"I was holding my #SNAKE and his #DUMB ASS saw a hole, which just so happened to be my fuckin #EARLOBE, and thought that it would be a bright idea to #ATTEMPT to make it through... "

Facebooking from the emergency room, with photograph.

To remove that image from your mind, I leave you with these snake quotes:

1. "'Where are the people?' resumed the little prince at last. 'It’s a little lonely in the desert…' 'It is lonely when you’re among people, too,' said the snake.'" — Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (The Little Prince)

2. "I have wanted to kill myself a hundred times, but somehow I am still in love with life. This ridiculous weakness is perhaps one of our more stupid melancholy propensities, for is there anything more stupid than to be eager to go on carrying a burden which one would gladly throw away, to loathe one’s very being and yet to hold it fast, to fondle the snake that devours us until it has eaten our hearts away?" — Voltaire (Candide: or, Optimism)

3. "Don't touch me, I'm full of snakes."  — Jack Kerouac

Boycotting the normalizers.

Once you're done deleting Uber, cancel your @usweekly subscription if you have one. This is vile. h/t @moorehn pic.twitter.com/R2byypEKTh

— Jessica Valenti (@JessicaValenti) January 29, 2017

Via Mashable, "US Weekly is all-too-ready to normalize Trump," by Heather Dockray:

While printing photos of a president's family is standard practice for a pop culture magazine...

For readers just starting to become aware of the dangers of the Trump presidency, (yes, that's just happening for some), US Weekly's cover is a mistake.

Dockray seems to have the assignment of tending to Trump-related feelings of millennial (and younger) readers. What's just the right touch of outrage + humor? How much earnestness? How much sarcasm?

Her post yesterday was: "What to do when you're so overwhelmed by the Trump presidency you can barely move." It's illustrated by a cutesy cartoon of a wide-eyed Statue of Liberty in hell saying "This is fine." There are lots of gifs showing sweet young people getting upset. What are kids supposed to do when they feel required to stay engaged but battered by one scary thing after another?

The bad news comes in so fast you can hardly keep up with it.... As important as it is to remain informed, however, it's equally necessary for people to stay calm and not lapse into full on Facebook post hysteria. It's far easier to organize when you're motivated by the hope in your heart rather than the panic our president inspires.

You can't and shouldn't dissociate from what's happening in Washington. You have a moral responsibility to act. But there are more effective ways you can manage your media consumption and activism, making you a stronger organizer (and way more likable human)....

There are 13 items, like:

8. Eat whatever the hell you want because f*ck it

Listen, the doomsday clock is literally inching towards midnight — now is not the time to go Paleo, folks. Sure, it's technically "good" to eat healthy, but who cares. If eating fettuccine alfredo for breakfast keeps you from bawling in front of your boss, then do it. Don't let Trump take away your constitutional right to cream sauce.

That's not representative of the list. That's in there for relief. Mostly the list tells you to limit your consumption of the news and pick a few moderate political things to do (like "Go to a march").

Managing the mood of young people is serious business. It won't be easy. It shouldn't be easy.

"In hindsight, I believe it was wrong for Barack Obama to normalize Donald Trump."

Said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), really sticking his neck out. He's a Democrat from California.

At least he's criticizing Obama, but what did he — does he, retrospectively — want Obama to do? Not welcome Trump to the White House? Not attend the Inauguration? That would have made Obama look abnormal.

As I'm writing this, Meade points me to Instapundit, who is saying: "The more they try to 'de-normalize' Trump, the less normal they seem."

ADDED: Ted Lieu is not just from California, he's from the 33rd District...



... Beverly Hills, Brentwood, Malibu, Santa Monica, UCLA campus, University of California, Venice, Westwood...

"The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America’s Universities"...

... is the title of the new book by KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor (who co-authored "Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case").

They talk about the new book here (at Volokh Conspiracy):

Despite horror stories like the one at Amherst, the mainstream media has poorly covered the campus sexual assault issue. There has been a handful of good work (most notably this Emily Yoffe article in Slate). More typical, however, has been the approach of the New York Times, which has virtually ignored concerns expressed by civil libertarian organizations and cohorts of law professors about the campus system’s unfairness. To the contrary, in an article about Stanford the Times recently portrayed the university’s process — which uses the lowest possible standard of proof, bans direct cross-examination by accused students, and has featured panelists who have been trained to believe that is it a sign of guilt for an accused student to respond to an accusation in a “persuasive and logical” way — as unfair to accusers. The reason? The school’s one fair rule — that the three panelists must be unanimous to justify a finding of guilty....

As for the universities, the power of identity politics has generally worked in tandem with the schools’ financial self-interest in appeasing federal officials who have the power to exact huge financial penalties to incubate unfairness toward accused students....

I immediately downloaded this book to my Kindle because — after writing the previous post about massive donations to the ACLU — I wanted to see where the organization stands on due process in campus sexual assault cases. I'm interested in the ACLU's vigor in disappointing donors who suddenly love the organization because of one issue. I highlighted free speech in my post, but I'd also wanted to say something about this due process problem, and my casual Googling had not turned up a clear answer.

There's not much about the ACLU in this book. This is the main reference:

[D]uring George W. Bush’s presidency, a handful of cases (at the University of Georgia, the University of Colorado, and Arizona State University) involving highly credible sexual assault allegations against college football and basketball players kept the issue in the public eye. In each case, the accuser filed a Title IX lawsuit against her school, alleging that it had knowingly recruited potentially violent felons solely because they were talented athletes and it had thereby shown deliberate indifference to the well-being of female students. Each case ended with a denial of the university’s motion to dismiss, followed by a settlement, driven by a hailstorm of negative publicity, in which the university apologized for not doing enough to protect women on campus. The American Civil Liberties Union filed amicus briefs supporting the Arizona State and Colorado plaintiffs.

"I just can't understand why the ACLU defends free speech for racists, sexists, homophobes and other bigots. Why tolerate the promotion of intolerance?"

A question, asked and answered at the ACLU website.

I'm just reading the ACLU website, because I'm seeing that the ACLU is doing fabulously well raising money right now:

This weekend alone, the civil liberties group received more than $24 million in online donations from 356,306 people, a spokesman told The Washington Post early Monday morning, a total that supersedes its annual online donations by six times.

The ACLU rakes in money from people who like what they see them doing right now. I trust the ACLU to outrage its transitory fans on other occasions.

"For more than 100 years, the Boy Scouts of America... have ultimately deferred to the information on an individual’s birth certificate to determine eligibility for our single-gender programs."

"However, that approach is no longer sufficient as communities and state laws are interpreting gender identity differently, and these laws vary widely from state to state."

The acting attorney general refused to defend Trump's immigration order... and Trump fired her.

I did not have time to blog about her refusal — I would have said it's up to Trump to fire her — before Trump fired her.

Taking action in an escalating crisis for his 10-day-old administration, Mr. Trump declared that Sally Q. Yates had “betrayed” the administration, the White House said in a statement. The president appointed Dana J. Boente, United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as acting attorney general until Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama is confirmed....

The extraordinary legal standoff capped a tumultuous day in which... Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, went so far as to warn State Department officials that they should leave their jobs if they did not agree with Mr. Trump’s agenda, after State Department officials circulated a so-called dissent memo on the order.

“These career bureaucrats have a problem with it?” Mr. Spicer said. “They should either get with the program or they can go.”

ADDED: "went so far"? 

At the Black Ice Café...

... you don't have to stick with what real. You can slide on the ice — eyes, -ize — like we did 6 years ago, the last time there was black ice on Lake Mendota.

I'm tapping the past for a seasonally appropriate photograph for a post. It's been too winter-dull here lately for me to want to get out the camera.

And, please, remember The Althouse Amazon Portal — it's how you can support this blog simply by thinking of me when you're doing shopping that you're doing anyway. 

"It’s like five, 10 years ago, when it was the True Religion jeans, really baggy. It’s like going from those to skinny jeans."

"You can’t bend over. I tried it one time, and it felt like it was really restrictive," said Mike Smith, a goalie for the Arizona Coyotes hockey team.

The new tight pants are not a fashion statement or an attempt to get women to watch. It's to make it easier to score. It makes sense: Having giant pants is not an athletic achievement. You want to watch what a man can do, not what big pants can do.

"Obama, who left office vowing to uphold the presidential tradition of not criticizing his successor..."

"... but also promising to speak out when he saw core values under threat by Trump, made it all of 10 days before releasing a statement following Friday's executive order that temporarily halted the nation's refugee program and severely restricted immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries."

Politico reports.

Here's my post from January 19, when Obama made his statement which, as I noted at the time was not much of a promise.

He's not promising to withdraw and leave the presidential stage to his successor, which is what George W. Bush did for him.

Obama had said: "There’s a difference between that normal functioning of politics and certain issues or certain moments where I think our core values may be at stake." But we knew very well, I said, that "there's this meme that the new President is not normal."

Bush, like his father, adhered to an absolute principle. Obama respects the principle by cushioning it with a malleable escape clause: where core values may be at stake. And what a wide door that is! Not only is the concept "core values" subject to infinite debate, but — whatever these values are — they don't have to be severely threatened, only "at stake." And they don't even need to be at stake. It's enough that they "may" be at stake. Well, then there's really no one-President-at-a-time principle of withdrawal at all.

Normalize, Part 3.

From the comments on "Normalize, Part 2": Chuck said:

What a wonderful, quintessentially Althouse post.

And of course Donald Trump wasn't thinking much about any of this when he employed "normalize." He's not on the same wavelength as Althouse, right? Am I right? You know I'm right. Trump uses less complicated words. Less complicated, but great. Really great words. Great, beautiful words. I guarantee it, that you will think that they are beautiful words. You will think that they are such beautiful words, you'll say, "Please, Mr. Trump! Your words are too beautiful! We can't take any more beautiful words!" But you're going to love it. Big time.