Mmmm fresh thread.

Anyone who could write two different book length memoirs covering his high school years, decades later, must have kept a journal. He also must have kept the journal. FBI, subpoena Mike Judge's volume 1982. If he doesn't have it, check with his agent, editors, publishers, lawyers etc.

But that would risk them finding something bad, Unimaginative.

I'm very curious about Blasely Ford's floor plan with two front doors. What kind of floor plan only has one exit in such a way that the only solution is another front door? Somehow there couldn't be a usable kitchen door or a back door or a side door? The only way it makes sense to me is if this house is just absolutely enormous, and she needs the 2nd exit closer than it would be if she had to cross to the back of the house or the side of the house.

Maybe her house had no sides or back. Only a front.

Or it was surrounded by cliffs on all sides but one, like Tantallon Castle.

4: I hadn't thought of the possibility that she lives in a Klein Bottle.

We can assume she doesn't live in Helm's Deep, because threats made her leave her home.

I didn't manage to read this whole thing, but the title and subhead seem to say it all.

Part Trojs

Devil's Triangle achieved!

she lives in a Klein Bottle

Bay Area real estate requires some compromises.

she lives in a Klein Bottle
Don't we all.

Well, we at least all live on the same side as one.

11: Judge seems to have lived in a pretty Gross Bottle for any number of years.

I just heard a conspiracy theory about the Supreme Court. Maybe one of the law whisperers could weigh in. The conspiracy theory is that Kavanaugh will be the 5th vote on Gamble versus United States, making it illegal for the federal government and state goverments to try people for the same crimes. As a side-effect, Trump's pardons will also be binding on the states. After the election, Trump will fire Sessions, Rosenstein, Mueller, etc, and pardon everybody.

Is this plausible?

14.last It's 2018. I don't see why not.

But if he's the fifth vote for it, I guess it's something any Republican would do anyway?

16: because state's rights.

14: I can believe he'd be the fifth vote on that, but I find it hard to believe in a conspiracy about it. Trump wouldn't come up with a plan like that himself and the Republicans in Congress don't care about him enough to do it for him. If that's actually what they wanted to do, there were much smarter ways to do it. Kennedy could easily have been the fifth vote, and if they actually cared about something like this, they probably could have found some nominee who was just as reliable a vote but had less baggage.

I wouldn't call what's going on here a conspiracy, except in the very broad sense that Republicans are authoritarians. Using the word "conspiracy" to describe anything bad that authoritarians do is a bit meaningless.

Process questions: when exactly has Kavanaugh's vote been moved to, does he become a justice the minute the Senate votes or are there further delays, when does the court hear the Gamble case, when do they give their ruling, and can he vote on it if the hearing is before his confirmation? Haven't found answers to any of that so far. It's already October. ISTR that months usually pass between SC arguments and rulings, but that's not always the case. Hell, maybe Gamble would have been a sure thing if Kennedy had stayed on, but Republicans got overconfident and fucked it up. We can hope.

I think SC justices get sworn in on the day, or shortly after, the full Senate votes them in. If Kav survives the week -- and he is likely to* -- he'll be voted on by the end of next week. And will certainly be seated in time for Gamble.

* I saw a tweet about a poll yesterday that suggested that a vote against Kav is bad for McCaskill. I don't doubt it, but I bet a vote for him is even worse. Anyway, they surely have to take the vote to get the bump.

OK, certainly in 19 discounts the possibility that Murkowski can be turned. I presume Kav still will get the votes, because that's what Rs do.

making it illegal for the federal government and state goverments to try people for the same crimes. As a side-effect, Trump's pardons will also be binding on the states.

I don't totally get this possibility - I thought Mueller was specifically not charging people with certain crimes in order to reserve them for the state of Maryland or whichever state to have an angle against the person. And then, why would the side effect necessarily be that Trump was allowed to pardon state law?

I guess the problem is that I don't know the Gamble case. It must have something to do with states and the federal government having separate laws?

Oh great McMegan has weighed in, because we needed more stupid arguments in this debate.

Huh. Thanks for this info about the pending Gamble case; I had no idea. It seems that RBG argued in favor of overturning the separate sovereignty precedent back in 2016. The pro- and con- parties are really mixed: ACLU and Cato in favor of overruling it.

The brotherhood of Chads is split wide open.

I found it remarkable that this is a case where having the name "Chad Ludington" actually increases his credibility.

It's like a Dickens or Rowling character name.

My brother works with a bunch of douchey Republican bankers in New Jersey. He reports that they all 100% swear they believe Kavanaugh and think Ford is lying.

I find this so bizarre. These are a bunch of ex-drunken fratboys, and for all intents and purposes, they're behind closed doors with their buddies. Why pretend that something like this is inconceivable, instead of taking the boys-will-be-boys stance and being indignant that something this old could jeopardize your bud's future?

My secret hope is that they're enraging their wives, who surely also attended the same parties, by denying this sort of thing could possibly happen, far more than they would if they just admitted this shit went on.

Maybe we can expect a wave of divorces to happen nine months after the Kavenaugh hearings.

27 Anything to avoid facing up to the question that maybe they're the baddies.

|| I generated a meme for use at the Otherplace, but am really not satisfied by the font. Suggestions? |>

The gestation period for that varies by state.

25: Okay. The rest of the story on the Chad incident is now out and it is pretty wonderful.

He said that the altercation happened after a UB40 concert, when he and a group of people went to Demery's and were drinking pints. At one point, they were sitting near a man who, they thought, resembled Ali Campbell, the lead singer of UB40.
"We're trying to figure out if it's him," he said.
When the man noticed Mr. Ludington, Mr. Kavanaugh and the others looking at him, he objected and aggressively asked them to stop, Mr. Ludington said.
It was then, he said, that Mr. Kavanaugh "threw his beer at the guy."
"The guy swung at Brett," Mr. Ludington continued. At that point, Mr. Dudley* "took his beer and smashed it into the head of the guy, who by now had Brett in an embrace. I then tried to pull Chris back, and a bunch of other guys tried to pull the other guy back. I don't know what Brett was doing in the melee, but there was blood, there was glass, there was beer and there was some shouting, and the police showed up."

*This is Chris Dudley whose name has come up (he went on to the NBA and rand for Oregon governor as a Repub). And boy does his credibility take a hit. From an earlier story: Dudley recalled that Kavanaugh was never aggressive when he drank.
"He wasn't that type of person," Dudley said.

Also Kavanaugh apparently had been reaching out to Yale friends to refute Ramirez before the story was published (and... shockingly... contrary to his testimony last Thursday).

This getting tiresome. Can we just move onto the next total fucking right-wing hack they want on the court?

32: Who among us has not ...

...attended a UB40 concert?

Omg, literally IM40 right this very moment.

Honestly, a drunken, half-assed slappy bar fight in college seems fine. Obvious perjury is a different problem.

Also, happy birthday?

Or enjoy the large bottle of beer?

Can we just move onto the next total fucking right-wing hack they want on the court?

It is true that by recent news standards, this is dragging on for ages. But since our other goal here is to push back the confirmation of the next total fucking right-wing hack, every day that they aren't working on someone new is a win.

Man, I was beat over the weekend, and wonder if I can attribute some of that to last week's news cycle.

38: Technically IM40&3/4.

I should probably think of something really stupid to do before I turn 50, because after 50 I should probably behave.

I have just under two months to go.

Have your anti-social behaviors disappeared?

After 50, if you get caught in a crime, you can do real time. Careful.

Wallander looks much less like death in season two.

We started out at judges should be impartial and able to give a fair hearing to all parties and be mindful of precedent. Now we're heading for: judges can repeatedly lie, often under oath; they can be angry, sober or drunk, during hearings or at other public functions; they can be obviously partisan, and openly dismissive of anyone who doesn't share their views; they can work behind the scenes in coordination with secretive interest groups to manipulate the appointment process through which they've been nominated; but if the result of a hearing set up to favor them at every step of the way, and an investigation carried out by an FBI that has been put on notice that they shouldn't try too hard to uncover facts, even if they haven't been explicitly denied the authorization to seek them out, fails to establish that they are conclusively guilty of a crime such that charges will be brought, then they are perfectly suited to serve on the Supreme Court.

Also, McConnell says the Democrats are moving the goalposts.

||

I'm sort of amused by this headline: J. Crew to Unveil New Brand for Younger Women in Recovery Plan.

I mean, addiction is awful. It's going to help them feel better if they look their best.

|>

Heh.

Wait, based on the models in ad campaigns, I thought lots of brands have been doing this for years.

"Get addicted to our SALES instead!"

If Kavanaugh does go down, and iiifff the Democrats take back the Senate, and iiiiiiiiiifffffffffffffff they can somehow run out the clock on the lame duck session without letting Republicans secure a nomination, then I would really like the Democrats to bring Merrick Garland back up for a vote. Not because he's the most lefty judge possible, but because it would cement in the public opinion that Democrats are not the ones who play games with Supreme Court seats.

Not sure whether BK is the main reason, but 538 has DJT at the most popular he's been in a month, very close to his all-time high. He dropped a little right after McCain's funeral.

I'd like to see BK removed from his current seat for perjury.

And disbarred.

Because I think the premise of "don't do stupid shit like call down a ton of scrutiny when you've got a checkered background" needs to be reinforced.

The popularity boost is more likely the trilateral trade agreement, no?

56: That's probably too recent to already be showing up in polls. It could just be statistical noise, or reversion to the mean after his recent downturn.

I think he has also been fairly quiet on Twitter lately.

54. Sure, I am also coastal and share your opinion. I also feel that the actual lies BK told about official duty should be the main topic of conversation, and are enough to disqualify him.
I am under no illusion about how widely shared my opinions are on this.

Yes. I assume a plurality of the country is voting deliberately to piss me off. Obviously, it's not strictly true, but it correlates with the truth very strongly.

If the Supreme Court gig doesn't pan out, I'm thinking Brett will leave the judiciary soon for much more lucrative opportunities as a legal analyst for Fox News with side-gigs doing beer commercials.

I was always baffled and impressed that Unfogged people tracked and knew of columnists by reputation. They mostly blur to me. So it seems likely that some of you are always already all 'Ben Wittes, known tool'. But I am just astounded by some of his descriptions of the situation around the Kavanaugh hearing in this article.

He seems to be arriving at the obvious conclusions, but the diversions beforehand about how Kavanaugh is going through hell just take my breath away. The hell of being held accountable for your own actions? How did no one around Kavanaugh warn him off?!

56,57. No idea. A cynical observer might say that only events suitable for illiterates matter-- funeral disrespect registers, so does uppity accuser from long ago. The other stuff takes reading.
I believe that red america is not buying into a decades-old accusation-- it's another referendum on groping and not quite criminal assault by high status men, same outcome as the first. I don't agree with this conclusion, but I personally don't think that doubling down in the press as is happening is going to be helpful for Ds in the midterm.

62: I didn't recognize the name, but I recognized the blog in the blurb at the end, and it all came back to me. He's a friend of Comey and had a similarly right-but-infuriating take on the relationship between Comey and Trump.

I read somewhere that a complaint about Judge Kavanaugh's perjury has been submitted to the DC Circuit, and will be handled by Chief Judge Garland. I have no idea if this was ever true, or if events have moved on since whatever I read was written.

Sometimes the stories are just a little too cute.

I more or less agree with 63, but I think 63 last leaves out some critical context. Ds may lose votes for going against Kav, but that's nothing like what they'd lose for not going against Kav.

I don't think anyone thinks that opposing Kav is some kind of silver bullet. Can supporting Kav cost the Rs some net votes? I think that's possible, especially if Kav gets confirmed. Not a huge deal, but if we're talking about knocking 2 or 3 or 4 percent off a given Rs count, we could well be talking about a result changing factor.

Wittes writes with the kind of pompous earnest centrism that should be mocked mercilessly out of public life. If you're such a bad judge of character that Kavanaugh's testimony surprises you, if you think that what the country needed before the hearing was well-intentioned advice for what Kavanaugh should have said to maintain some dignity for himself and for the process, then you are so far from understanding the political situation you should just stay quiet on the sidelines, or better yet, out of sight.

Given recent stories about Kavanaugh's supporters apparently shopping for character witnesses and responses to allegations before they became public, I would not be surprised if it turned out some of the allegations reached the press via people contacted for pre-denials rather than from the people making the accusations.

I kind of expected the NYT's special report to prompt a bit of discussion here. Am I missing it in some other thread?

Seems like a pretty big deal when the nation's top newspaper, in essence, accuses the president of wide-ranging fraud -- and clearly has the goods.

Or are we all so jaded now that this isn't really news?

69: That's how jaded I am, yeah.

Yeah, I'll post it.

I'll try not to be jaded. I don't understand why or how something that is both horrible and obvious juts into the public consciousness at a given moment rather than at any time before, but I know it happens and would be perfectly delighted if this happened now.

I find myself wondering now how Kavanaugh's team solicited all those carpool-dad testimonials early in the process: whether it was quid pro quo or veiled threats. I mean, maybe his liberal colleagues just spontaneously flocked to pitch articles attesting to his moral character, but in light of the rest of it, seems kind of farfetched...

I am in a pretty grim worst-is-yet-to-come mood today.

Yep. The rancid fuckhead caucus looks to have pulled it off. I think the "poll bump" helped give some heart to the waverers that it would not be a complete disaster for them. And I do think almost every cuntfuck Trump voter I know took notice of this. Satan is no way through with us yet.

I await the media completely downplaying the illegitimacy of the ensuing Supreme Court.

I hate everything and everybody. Vote hard.

Murkowski hasn't said anything yet, but with both Collins and Flake making supportive noises they wouldn't need her vote. I could see her voting no when all the other Republicans vote yes so he goes through. That would be very on-brand for her.

I'm really distraught by all this. I can't believe he's going to be confirmed. But who am I kidding, I can believe it.

I am working on exuding a calm and wise demeanor in accordance with my years,

But it is not working.

Eh, work sucks today. Busy, behind on several things, I've been relatively productive but it doesn't matter because new stuff keeps coming up or I'm getting responses on recent stuff a lot earlier than I thought I would, there was one meeting that would have been productive but the other guy cancelled and another meeting was corporate news irrelevant to me and a third meeting was good news in a very broad sense but left me thinking like I don't have a clue how to do the main part of my job. What's some sucky political news on top of that?

worst-is-yet-to-come mood

What kills me is that you couldn't ask for a scenario that better justifies packing the court, were a Dem president to arrive with a Dem majority in both houses in 2020, which this horror show only makes more (if not actually) likely, and yet I can't imagine a world in which the Dems would go ahead and do it if they could.

And so I'll be looking at this entitled rapey screamy shitheel garbage human sitting on the SC for the rest of my life.

People are beginning to talk about packing the court. I need to look up what's involved in a successful execution of that process.

80: A civil war. Seriously, the only time the Supreme Court has ever been packed or reduced in size was Civil-War-related.

Let me amend 80. The last time it was packed was by President Grant. The size of the SC changed a few times before the Civil War, in addition to once during, but not since Reconstruction.

"We're going to use misogyny as a lever for undermining the rule of law" is a strangely depressing plot to witness.

Can't use racism for everything.

Maybe so. I just wanted to know what it takes to do it, procedurally. As I figured, it would require Democratic control of both houses of Congress as well as the Presidency -- so some bit of time before we're even in a position to try.

Vox has an article outlining alternatives, but I'm not going to bother to link, because it seems equally, or even more, impossible to accomplish.

Best case scenario is there are enough reasons apart from the investigation to vote know and a couple of preening centrists get to kneel before the god of procedure and declare innocent until proven guilty while voting unfit temperament for the court. But that's as likely as someone changing party affiliation.

Or vote no, even.

for the rest of my life.

Right. It is particularly galling that Kavanaugh is younger than I am. On the bright side, it has helped inspire me to resume my regular workouts in the hopes of having the opportunity to piss on the sonofabitch's grave.

Pro tip: If you hate running as much as I do, use a treadmill and put Fox News on the TV in front of you. Seething rage helps keep your hearbeat up, and makes time pass more quickly.

But that's as likely as someone changing party affiliation.

Hey! More and more people are doing that!

Heitkamp is a no.

I know she's in a tough race and all but I'm not really fucking interested in hearing news about Democratic Senators who are voting no. The only news I care about are Republicans voting no, and gods forbid, Dems voting yes.

Fuck this. Fuck everything.

But I don think this should be rewarded with donations.

Geez, sorry.

I meant do. I do think she should be rewarded with donations.

93 Not directed at you. Just really upset by this whole thing. We always seem to be headed to the worst outcome of all possible outcomes.

Pack the fucking court.

I saw the Heitkamp headline and the fact that her vote was apparently in question was extraordinarily depressing.

96: Fight for fifteen!

(Merrick Garland, who will finally get a hearing, and five women.)

Prediction: Manchin yes, Murkowski no, everyone else party line.

The last couple years has made me miss believing in hell, which isn't something I thought would happen. It would be comforting to know Kavanaugh and Trump would spend eternity suffering, and I'd love to see the looks on all these so-called Christians when Jesus said he never knew them. Too bad it's all a fable.

I wonder whether any of the democrats on the court will breach the usual decorum in some way. You can't just treat Kavanaugh like he's a normal non-criminal.

It's amazing to watch the whole system just degrade over my lifetime. Douglas Ginsburg couldn't get on the court, and all he did was smoke pot with his students.

101: Sure, but Clarence Thomas got on despite credible accusations of sexual harassment.

And anyway, no one's said anything about Brett smoking the evil weed. That might have been the thing that would have swayed geezers like Grassley and Hatch.

This is darkly funny:

Matthew Yglesias @mattyglesias 1h

Matthew Yglesias Retweeted Senator Bob Menendez

Literally nobody else in the senate is better-equipped to know what a rigorous FBI investigation looks like.

Senator Bob Menendez @SenatorMenendez

Just read the FBI report on Kavanaugh - if that's an investigation, it's a bullshit investigation.

Prediction: Manchin yes, Murkowski no, everyone else party line.

Counter-prediction: Manchin and Murkowski vote the same way. Probably yes.

I honestly think the best possible response to changing the balance of power on the SC by cheating (the McConnell method) is to change the balance of power on the SC by packing, which is a non-cheating -- that is, entirely legal even if it feels like a big deal -- method.

The last time the court was actually packed may have been around the Civil War, but the last time a credible threat to do it was made when a wholly conservative court was completely out of step with where the country, and the democratically elected representatives of the country, were on the policy the court kept ruling against. Which is exactly where we're going to be shortly if Justice Shitheel is confirmed.

I would really like to see this happen, more even than I'd like to see a justice Kavenaugh impeached and removed. My new motto for the SC is, "This one goes to eleven."

To do that, you need a majority and reasonable chances of keeping that majority for long enough that the court isn't just doubled again. I'd rather focus on how to get a durable majority first.

I guess I was pretty naive to think the FBI would perform a real investigation. I had thought institutional independence was a real thing for them, but apparently not. It seems they have been captured too.

107: What happened to the Deep State?

We're going to need a deeper state.

106: doesn't matter. They add five to the supreme court? You add ten. They add another ten? You add twenty. That's the Chicago way.

That's a recipe for paralysis, which is not a game going to be won by the side that wants the government to do things for people.

106: Yes. I really feel we're getting ahead of ourselves on this. It kind of reminds me of when I decided that after college I wouldn't try to play two professional sports (I was 10 years old).

Yes. That too.

Paralysis is an improvement over regression.

What's the alternative, though? It's either escalate until the two sides agree to a compromise, or the Democrats surrender. The Republicans got two seats out of their bad behavior in Bush v. Gore, and one seat out of refusing to seat Garland. The Democrats surrendered on making an issue out of the first, and were ineffectual in making an issue out of the second. Republican escalation and Democratic surrender gave them control of the court for a generation.

Why talk about an escalation that you aren't even sure you can do? Talk about winning, not different ways to lose, seems to me to be a better way to win.

What Walt said.

I'm actually disturbed by what a white-hot hate I'm feeling for Mitch McConnell through all this. Not that he doesn't deserve it, but I just don't associate this feeling with... my entire adulthood. This is a middle-school level of loathing. It feels weird.

Mobes, don't you believe in aspiration? That's like, downright unAmerican.

Realistically, how far away is a demographic change big enough to make the current Republicans look like the last gasps of dying reactionary power? 20 years? That's the only way out. McConnell literally stole a Supreme Court seat and they're about to install a party hack who also happens to be an absolute shithead, and there's nothing we can do about it.

116: I don't think court packing is around the corner, but we have to prepare the ground for it. You could see the Democrats flirt with compromise after Trump was elected, but the obvious demand from the base for resistance stiffened their resolve not to compromise. A big step like court-packing will follow a similar trajectory.

120: I think it might be easier to impeach Kavanaugh. After that we can impeach Clarence Thomas.

119: A 20-year horizon seems way too long to make meaningful predictions, about the effects of demographic change or anything else (except possibly the climate). I don't know if you're just expressing cynicism or qualified despair, but it's tricky. Say it's fall of 2005 again: what are/were your predictions for 2025? Did they come anywhere close to the actual course of events? I have been thinking about this in my own case: things looked incredibly bleak to me then, and yet I am amazed at how much the Bush years have gone down the collective memory hole after the subsequent shifts in power.

The timeline and surrounding policy actions would prevent escalation, assuming everything stays constitutional. If the Dems add 6 to the court, it will be during a period of two-branch power lasting at least 2 years, and a presidency of at least 4. During that time, they pass voting rights, independent redistricting, election day holiday, etc., and that changes the equation for the next elections. Even if the Republicans get the presidency and all of Congress immediately following that, things will be incommensurately different.

things looked incredibly bleak to me then, and yet I am amazed at how much the Bush years have gone down the collective memory hole after the subsequent shifts in power

Down the memory hole, yes, but I'd argue that the torture debate was the primary factor in laying the ground for today's decency-free politics. So you were right to see things as bleak, and they're still playing out.

There's no winning this fight with slim majorities. The Republicans are happy to see the government burn down as long as their donors get rich and their base has someone to hate. They'll always take the escalation farther. That party has to be transformed before things get better, and that's not happening anytime soon.

I place no faith in demographics. Racist young people are being minted all the time. Organize, organize, organize.

Yes. Demographics are shit at predicting politics. I'm not even going to bother to look up what people were saying about the Boomers when they were as young as the Millennials.

Brohems, the Republicans have lost the Hispanic vote for at least a generation.

Which won't matter when they disenfranchise everyone without 4 US grandparents, or whatever. It's really appalling that anyone still thinks Republicans are just going to stand there and wait for demography to roll over them.

127: Trump got about the same percentage of the Hispanic vote that Romney did. I don't see it declining very much.

127: A lot of Hispanic voters are going to turn white. CNN tells us that even in 2016, Trump got 28 percent of the Latino vote. That has to be a floor.

(I assumed that the Latino Trump voters were all Cubans, but a quick Google informs me that Cubans were 4% of the Hispanic population in 2004.)

they disenfranchise everyone without 4 US grandparents

That would disenfranchise Trump. And Ted Cruz.

Anyway, I'm so post-racist that I know whole bunches of people who are both Hispanic and assholes.

Keep on emerging, Emerging Democratic Majority! You'll get there soon, you can do it!

Kavanaugh has an op-ed. He's admitting that he was too partisan and vicious in his Senate hearing. He's promising to be horrible to women, not Democrats, as a judge.

134.last is probably my paraphrasing, not a quote.

Hispanic voters are traditionally somewhat anti-illegal immigrant. I think that 28 % drops after 4+ years of demonstrations of what Build The Wall really means.

So, the minidrama we're looking at is our Sen. Daines is going to be in Montana on Saturday for his daughter's wedding, and has apparently told McConnell to ether reschedule or dote vote without him. First time in his public career the guy has earned any respect from me. Although, to be fair, if he was an opponent of Kav, I wouldn't want him missing the vote . . .

do the vote

Is McConnell going to authorize time and a half for senators who are already at 40 hours this week and have to work on Saturday?

I thought Senators fought for and won the three day work week.

the Republicans have lost the Hispanic vote for at least a generation.

This made me think of the depressing San Antonio election Heebie mentioned a week or two ago.

Flores, who takes over until the term expires in 2021, will become the first Hispanic Republican ever elected to the Texas Senate. The taking of another GOP senate seat makes it even harder for Democrats to break up Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick's supermajority in November.

And to 124... I should give this a more thoughtful response, but I suspect twenty more years of occasionally interrupted full-scale kleptocracy -- plus the current regimen of hurricanes, fires, and drought -- is going to make "demographics" seem like a pretty academic concern.

Something I've been idly wondering: how many people displaced by hurricanes and fires (last year and this year) are going to vote this fall? Can you register from your FEMA trailer or your half-destroyed moldy house? This is going to be one of these things I look up myself two seconds after posting.

do the vote

do the Bartman

141 was me (obviously?).

Hispanics may vote for Republicans less, but their vote may be a lot more depressed.

Can you register from your FEMA trailer or your half-destroyed moldy house? This is going to be one of these things I look up myself two seconds after posting.

You can register to vote even if you're homeless, in theory, I believe, although I wouldn't know how to register a homeless person.

Here, a FEMA trailer would be fine. The address of a place where your head hits the pillow, under any circumstances, is fine, along with an address where you can receive mail.

What if you glued a pillow to your post office box?

Here in Massachusetts, the voter registration form has a little street-intersection diagram for you to label where you live if it's not a street address. I had a housemate who registered that way (clearly he wasn't supposed to, since we had a normal address), and then went to vote. The elections staff was a bit puzzled, and hadn't actually seen that form of registration before, but did let him vote.

145.2: Do they give these trailers street mailing addresses, though?

Looks like cloture is going to pass. Party-line except Murkowski no (!) and Manchin yes (fffff). Our only hope is Murkowski gives two others cover to turn around and vote no on confirmation. Who knows, maybe Manchin could spin a change as "I decided I should believe women like Murkowski." God rot his soul regardless.

99 to 149.

I guess Part Trois has run off the front page. Let me do something about that.

Christ, Collins is "announcing her final decision at 3pm". She's taking up Trump's cheap drama tricks.

Fuck it. Put the vote in a balloon, blue confetti for yes and pink for no, explode the balloon at a press conference held in a flammable wild area, like the gender-reveal arsonist.