On a serene morning‚ a dog named Boston sat quietly tied to a park bench‚ his eyes reflecting a deep unease. He was discovered with a note revealing his past of neglect. The note spoke of his previous owner’s regret and hope for a better future‚ a touching plea for understanding and care. This was... The post Timid dog found tied to bench with note ‘explaining’ why he was left there appeared first on Animal Channel.

Michael Lind has written a provocative commentary‚ partly in response to John Judis and Ruy Texeira’s recent book‚ “Where Have All the Democrats Gone&;#63;” Lind would have us believe that the Democratic Party will do better in November than its naysayers suggest. Contrary to what Texiera-Judis maintain‚ namely that the Democrats have lost their traditional working-class base and may no longer be flourishing among racial minorities‚ the Dems supposedly have the wind at their back. The only reliable Republican constituencies‚ we are told‚ are white evangelicals and Mormons; and both groups are dwindling in number relative to other demographics.Lind also believes‚ correctly‚ that black people and Jews have been the most faithful Democratic constituencies‚ and he believes these loyalties are no less strong now than before. If Donald Trump gained in the last election about 31% of the Jewish vote (thanks largely to the Orthodox) and somewhere above 10% of the black vote‚ that’s what he will likely win this year. Among Hispanic voters‚ allegedly‚ Trump will not do much better than he did in 2020.Republicans shouldn’t get overconfident about their chances for victory. Also‚ black people and suburban women may be exceedingly hard to push rightward.Moreover‚ because of Democratic support among “secularized” Americans‚ especially those with leftist social views‚ Biden should easily prevail against Trump. Indeed‚ the only reason we’re giving Trump a chance‚ according to Lind‚ is that Biden is such a doddering candidate. But that won’t matter‚ given the Democrats’ far greater electoral strength.The reason I’m responding to this analysis is that I’ve received notes indicating that Lind and I have taken the same position. Neither one of us‚ it is believed‚ hold out hope for a Republican victory. Furthermore‚ both of us view the alliance of the woke Left‚ the media‚ and urban black people as too powerful for the Trump campaign to overcome.For those who believe that Lind and I are making the same prediction‚ let me assure them that they’re wrong. Unlike Lind‚ I don’t believe‚ barring lots of dirty tricks‚ the Democrats are inescapably headed for a November victory; or that the Democratic share of the votes of certain demographics is fixed in stone. What I have argued is that Republicans shouldn’t get overconfident about their chances for victory. Also‚ black people and suburban women‚ I have insisted‚ may be exceedingly hard to push rightward.At this point‚ it seems that Trump will do better among Hispanics than he did in 2020. He may also make inroads among non-Orthodox Jewish voters because of his unswervingly pro-Israel stance and because the Democrats are saddled with pro-Hamas voters.Trump also appears to be increasing his share of black male voters by engaging both the surging crime wave and economic issues. Although I’ve been deeply skeptical about the GOP’s ability to do well in urban black districts‚ there may be at least modest gains to be made here. Overall‚ I think that Texeira and Judis‚ both of whom are left-leaning Democrats‚ are describing the electoral situation of their party more accurately than Lind.Lind may not‚ however‚ be entirely off course if the Democrats can make abortion and other social issues work to their advantage among certain voting blocs.The problem here is that inflation‚ overrun borders‚ and high crime seem to be overshadowing wedge issues‚ and the Republicans at the national level are letting the abortion issue go‚ at least for now‚ since it has become for them electorally toxic. The social left has a definite PR advantage over its opponents in mobilizing those who favor unlimited abortion rights. But without the effective use of that issue‚ depicting Republicans convincingly as MAGA terrorists‚ and perhaps millions of mysterious ballots turning up in suspicious circumstances‚ it may be hard for the Democrats to win.What makes Lind’s presentation unnecessarily unsettling is his transparent contempt for socially traditional Christians. Who are all those Republicans he complains about who are “trying to repeal the New Deal” and who are taking “extremist positions on abortion”&;#63; In such hyperbolic fits‚ Lind gives away his own leftist politics. He also throws around the term “secularization‚” which seems for Lind a badge of social acceptability. It may be proof in his case that someone is not trying to return to the Eisenhower era. Obviously‚ letting go of traditional religious beliefs will affect political choices but may not be all-determining if other factors come into play. Those who don’t attend church services may still vote for Trump because they don’t like the surging crime rate or the Democrats’ discrimination against white males.Religiously skeptical voters may also be dismayed by what Biden has done to overwhelm us with costly‚ disruptive illegal aliens who are already being wooed as new Democratic voters.Lind may be understating the white Catholic support for Trump. According to a Pew Research survey‚ in 2020 white Catholics who attended Mass at least monthly gave Trump 63% of their votes; even non-Mass-attending white Catholics gave him 53%. Biden does have a problem with religious Catholics who are understandably appalled by his radical moral positions. In all probability‚ he’ll lose that demographic in November by a wide‚ wide margin.

Liberals control the legal profession‚ from the law schools and litigious nonprofits to the bar associations and judges (including many Republican appointees). Judicial supremacy‚ implemented through “universal injunctions‚” allows any liberal legal group to tap one of 670 district judges in 94 district courts to decide on a broad range of public policies‚ which the political elite then treat as “law.” The good news: Evidence seems to suggest that at least three Supreme Court justices intend to end this irrational practice. We might only have three justices on our side‚ but governors should still firmly reject overreaching judges who believe their position gives them veto power. A law signed by a president or a governor doesn’t need a judge’s approval. Judges — I’d include Supreme Court justices — don’t have veto power. Rather‚ when a judge believes that a law violates constitutional rights (in a case that comes with proper standing before him)‚ he has the power to grant relief to an individual plaintiff seeking permission for a particular action. The belief that a federal judge’s decision is the last word on an issue‚ automatically forcing other government branches to comply even if they believe the decision is unconstitutional‚ and that it’s universally binding‚ is incorrect. It’s a misconception based on a mistaken belief in judicial supremacy and exclusivity. Put simply‚ judges don’t have the power to cancel or reject laws like a president or governor can with new legislation. The framers of the Constitution had considered a different approach called the “Council of Revision” that would have replaced‚ not added to‚ the president’s independent veto power. So when liberal nonprofits (or conservatives‚ for that matter) challenge a state or federal law in district court‚ a judge can decide in favor of the group that brought the case. But that means the district judge can only render a ruling necessary for the plaintiff to obtain redress for the grievance before the court. Which brings us to Labrador v. Poe‚ another in the growing body of cases in which district judges are universally enjoining duly passed statutes banning chemical and physical castration of minors. Last year‚ Idaho made it illegal for doctors to perform or prescribe treatments that “change” a minor’s sex‚ and this law was approved overwhelmingly by both houses of the state's legislature. Later that year‚ two families seeking estrogen treatment and puberty blockers for their children sued in district court‚ and District Court Judge Lynn Winmill enjoined the entire law under the pretext that it likely violated the 14th Amendment because‚ evidently‚ Congress in 1867 sought to protect castration while extending due process to freed black slaves. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals naturally sided with the district judge‚ and Idaho officials filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court to stay the injunction. Obviously‚ Winmill’s ruling is absurd. The 14th Amendment has nothing to say about the right to castrate minors. And‚ in any event‚ if someone thinks the judge’s orders should be obeyed‚ his authority should extend only to the specific plaintiffs and their case‚ not to veto the entire law‚ especially not before a full trial has taken place. It's unreasonable to think a judge can nullify a law in its entirety so quickly and easily‚ especially parts not involved in the case‚ like the ban on physical castration. Thankfully‚ in this case‚ at least five justices announced their vote to overturn the injunction and pave the way for Idaho’s law to take effect. Justice Neil Gorsuch‚ however‚ wrote a vitally important concurring opinion that railed against the premise that judges have the power to issue universal injunctions against duly passed laws. He was joined by Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. “In recent years‚ certain district courts across the country have not contented themselves with issuing equitable orders that redress the injuries of the plaintiffs before them‚ but have sought instead to govern an entire State or even the whole Nation from their courtrooms‚” Gorsuch laments. “Today‚ Idaho is on the receiving end of one of these universal injunctions‚ but lately it has often been the federal government.” Gorsuch points out that universal and nationwide injunctions affecting people beyond a court’s geographical jurisdiction and the original plaintiffs are relatively new in our history. He also acknowledges that the approach can swing both ways politically. We all remember how Trump’s policies were blocked by Hawaiian judges (for some reason) who applied their injunctions nationwide. Gorsuch notes that during Obama’s eight years‚ this happened only 19 times‚ but it happened 55 times in Trump’s first three years. The liberal justices lament the sheer volume of emergency injunctions pending before the court by various government actors related to high-profile public policy issues. Gorsuch rightly places the blame on lower court universal injunctions‚ however‚ noting the practice circumvents normal judicial processes and “tends to force judges into making rushed‚ high-stakes‚ low-information decisions” at all levels.Gorsuch touches on one of the most vital policy changes we need. Unless universal injunctions are ended‚ red-state governments and the next Republican administration will be needlessly stymied by swift troll lawsuits and clownish liberal judges inventing specious constitutional arguments‚ knowing that even if they ultimately lose on the merits‚ they can undermine a law for years. Clarence Thomas had previously railed against such injunctions in his 2018 concurrence in the Trump “travel ban” case (Trump v. Hawaii). Thomas began by noting that absent statutory authority from Congress‚ lower courts have no power to issue universal injunctions. In fact‚ as Thomas observed in a footnote‚ even if Congress granted the courts such authority‚ they “would need to consider whether that statute complies with the limits that Article III places on the authority of federal courts.” “Universal injunctions are legally and historically dubious‚” Thomas concluded. “If federal courts continue to issue them‚ this Court is dutybound to adjudicate their authority to do so.” Undoubtedly‚ conservatives benefit from this practice once in a while against blue states and Democrat presidents. As I’ve long noted‚ however‚ the lower court injunctions far too often swing against us. The Idaho case notwithstanding‚ the Supreme Court is often reluctant to stay lower court injunctions. We might only have three justices on our side‚ but governors should still firmly reject overreaching judges who believe their position gives them veto power‚ too.

The Palestine Solidarity Committee was suspended for failing to register a protest and violating guidelines on the responsible use of space.

‘Well‚ look‚ we have a majority of one‚ OK&;#63;‚’ Trump said. ‘It’s not like he can go and do whatever he wants to do.’

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar could have given a ringing defense of written law against mob rule. Why was she so defensive instead&;#63;

Students will have the option of attending classes remotely.

Carol Roth Shares TERRIFYING Guess About Who Democrats Might Swap Biden Out for and LOL-OMG-NOOO

Kamala Harris Community Noted So BRUTALLY Even Elon Musk Can't Help but LAUGH His Arse Off (Screenshot)

WAT&;#63;&;#33; Bree Newsome Claims the Middle East Is Better to Women and Gays Than FL and TX and HELLOOO Backfire