The Norwegian word gal translates as “crazy” in English. However, citizens of the Nordic nation have adopted a more unconventional slang term to describe something that’s unpredictable, chaotic, exhilarating, or simply scary—“texas.”
They nailed that.
#magacrazy #texascrazy

https://www.mentalfloss.com/language/slang/texas-norway-slang

Mike Lindell claims he has been vindicated

#news #politics #republicans #MagaCrazy
https://www.rawstory.com/mike-lindell-2020-election-vindicated/

Hypocrisy in motion. Lauren Boebert (MAGA), all class

"A bar owned by Rep. Lauren Boebert’s (R-CO) apparent new boyfriend staged a drag show earlier this year, the New York Post reports.

“Quinn Gallagher, a Democrat, was caught on video getting frisky with Boebert, apparently grabbing her breast while she appeared to rub his crotch as the pair took in a performance of ‘Beetlejuice’ and the Buell Theater in Colorado.”

#NEWSJUNKIE #POLITIX #VOTE #VOTEBLUE #2024election #gop #MagaCrazy #maga

Sorry in advance for not including alt text. This is just too lengthy and complex. I tried but gave up...
The cartoon is too valuable to not share...

#MAGACrazy

Part 2
Yet another example of a right-wing judge usurping the power of elected officials to end run around democracy, and seize power undemocratically to ensure minority rule. This has been McConnel's and the Federalists Society's goal all along. They don't care if they can't obtain power via elections, they can impose their will on the majority via this undemocratic power grab.

Trump Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, the Christian right activist who thinks he is king
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/12/17/23512766/supreme-court-matthew-kacsmaryk-judge-trump-abortion-immigration-birth-control

#MagaCrazy
#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#ChristianNationalism
#JudgesUsurpingLawmakersAuthority
#GOPHatesDemocracy

"...Similarly, one of the many problems with Kacsmaryk’s Deanda decision is that it violates the constitutional requirement that federal courts may only hear a challenge to a federal policy if the person bringing a lawsuit has been injured in some way by that policy. The plaintiff challenging Title X in Deanda is a father who does not claim that he has ever sought Title X-funded care, does not allege that his daughters have ever sought Title X-funded care, and who doesn’t even claim that they intend to seek such care in the future.

Often, Kacsmaryk’s opinions suggest not only that he knows he is defying the law, but also that he revels in doing so. His opinion in Neese, for example, opens with a quote from Justice Samuel Alito’s dissenting opinion in Bostock. A dissent, by definition, is not the law. Indeed, it is often the opposite of the law, because dissenting opinions state arguments that a majority of the Court rejected.
...
According to the Supreme Court, Kacsmaryk also engaged in “unwarranted judicial interference in the conduct of foreign policy,” because his opinion effectively forced the United States government to bargain with Mexico in order to reinstate the Remain in Mexico policy.
...
Although this memo spends three pages discussing “the concerns of states and border communities,” for example, Kacsmaryk claims that the administration failed “to adequately consider costs to States and their reliance interests.”
...
But the Court also emphasized that judges should apply a “narrow standard of review” when assessing if a memorandum explaining a new policy is adequate, and should “assess only whether the decision was ‘based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.’”

Instead, Kacsmaryk nitpicks the October memo, faulting it for things like failing to perform a “cost-benefit analysis,” or for not giving enough weight to the degree to which the Remain in Mexico program might deter asylum seekers from arriving at the border.

But if Regents permits this kind of granular judicial criticism of a new policy’s justification, then no federal policy can ever be changed. There will always be some study that the federal government could have conducted, but didn’t, before announcing a shift in its approach. And there will always be some argument for maintaining the status quo that the government either didn’t mention in its memo justifying the new policy, or did not discuss at as much length as it could have.

Kacsmaryk has gotten away with this behavior because his judicial superiors let him

Kacsmaryk is able to behave this way in no small part because his decisions appeal to the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, a reactionary court dominated by Republican appointees, many of whom share his flexible approach to judicial decision-making.

But he also gets away with his behavior because the Supreme Court provides only the most cursory supervision of Kacsmaryk, even when a majority of the justices determine that the Trump judge mangled the law.

Shortly after Kacsmaryk issued his first decision ordering the administration to reinstate Remain in Mexico, the Supreme Court rejected the government’s request to temporarily block the decision while the case was being litigated. It then left Kacsmaryk’s ruling in place for 10 months, before ultimately ruling that he had misread the law.
...
If the Supreme Court follows this same pattern again, it may be 2024 before the justices get around to reversing Kacsmaryk’s second Texas decision. That would mean that, for nearly half of President Joe Biden’s current term in office, Kacsmaryk will have effectively wielded what should have been the Biden administration’s power to decide US border policy.

The Texas federal courts’ unusual case assignment process, which allows so many litigants to choose Kacsmaryk as their judge, bears much of the blame for the enormous power he wields. Ultimately, however, the best safeguard against rogue judges is an appellate system where higher-ranking judges act in good faith — and in a timely manner — to review lower courts’ decisions and reverse them when necessary.

That system has now broken down. And that means that Kacsmaryk can act as king almost any time someone files a legal complaint in his Amarillo courthouse."