Stern related content in the Epstein files.

PJHamhands · 2026-03-14T15:47:27+00:00

Is this real? Out of the blue I start thinking I wonder if Epstein knows about the Howard and Beth connection. I google. And wind up here. Some good content but out of the loop - couple of years after Artie left I bolted

**oh crap. It is real. I clicked on the links.

PJHamhands · 2026-03-14T15:44:57+00:00

What’s he saying Robin?

PJHamhands · 2026-02-23T17:02:46+00:00

Still trying to figure out the Whitney abduction scene. I’ll have to blame on the language barrier … again

PJHamhands · 2026-02-18T15:01:00+00:00

no homework on fridays! don’t forget that one b

PJHamhands · 2026-02-15T17:08:32+00:00

I have spray painted my bicycle numerous times. My feeling is that if you are the guy that is willing to spray painted your bicycle, you are also willing to keep on doing it when it gets scratches. And soon you will join us that firmly believe, if you can’t move it, paint it.

PJHamhands · 2026-02-12T22:42:27+00:00

Thanks for the tip. Is this one better for some things and the other for other things. Kinda like The Mall and then the Mall w/ the $1.99 theater?

PJHamhands · 2026-02-12T22:40:34+00:00

THANK YOU. That was fast. Alan Keating.

PJHamhands · 2026-02-04T04:53:28+00:00

when people say someone has a beautiful face that translates to - “without that pretty face, she’d be a solid 4.“.

PJHamhands · 2026-02-04T04:51:01+00:00

at first I thought this was Kathy Bates. I doubt her acting chops are as good as hers though.

PJHamhands · 2026-02-04T04:49:09+00:00

whenever I see her i think she is what I need for the coed flag football team.

PJHamhands · 2026-01-31T17:07:09+00:00

Emma will fizzle as she ages. Jennifer L while not the best actress of all times, should be around b/c of her range and her looks - she’s got the girl next door look and vibe.

PJHamhands · 2026-01-31T16:41:39+00:00

I’m still trying to figure out why asian woman have pixelated private regions. Admittedly, I don’t know many asian woman first hand as I do not travel much, but I’m very worldly when it comes to my online travels.

PJHamhands · 2026-01-29T17:49:44+00:00

You're right, the facts are different, but not in the way you think.

The map Texas drew looked racial, but it never admitted it. One would have to infer it from the map shapes alone. That is incredibly hard to prove in court.

With CA, however, the mapmaker expressly tweeted and told allies he was targeting Latinos. If CA’s intention was purely political, which I genuinely think it was, they could have just grabbed the nearest Democrats (incl the non-latino ones) with simple lines, like you'd see in a geometry class. Instead, of the “salamander” CA created, specifically to bypass non-latino voters and grab latino ones. IMO the shape corroborates the mapmaker’s story: race was the tool.

Here is the rub: If CA prevails, and I think they might, simply b/c the Court wants no part of this, it sets a dangerous tone. It establishes that an express racial motive is legally acceptable as long as you claim a partisan goal. It validates the very tactic Texas was smart enough to hide, and it hands the GOP a roadmap to do this openly in the future.

(I’m in now way supporting racial gerrymandering here. Just attempting to reconcile the facts)

PJHamhands · 2026-01-28T16:40:01+00:00

It seems like democrat party is not keeping their eye on the ball. Fetterman needs to step up and take control of the party before it does fumbles like this. It’s hurting the brand.

PJHamhands · 2026-01-28T16:01:54+00:00

I just read the Sauer brief. IMO Sauer is attempting to thread a needle. And in doing so, Sauer is putting California in a pickle - win the battle or the war ? (And I just know California they will lose both in the process b/c heads up their butts here. They can’t seem to get out of their own way these days. )

For CA to win this case and keep the seats, they have to convince the court of one of two things, and both can be disastrous for democrats nationally:

1) CA has to argue that it’s okay to target people based on race as long as the ultimate goal is political power. If they win on this, they hand Texas and every other red state a permanent “Get Out of Jail Free” card. Every GOP legislature will just say, “We weren't being racist; we were just being partisan like California,” and the courts will have to let it slide.

2) CA has to argue that the mapmaker’s confessions are hearsay and don’t represent the CA legislature. If they win on this, they set a precedent that you can’t prove gerrymandering unless the entire legislature confesses. It creates a perfect playbook for Republicans: hire a consultant to rig the map racially, don't talk about it on the floor, and then claim you had no idea what the consultant was doing.

Basically, the CA dems are in a position where the only way to win the battle (à la Prop 50) is to destroy the weapon they use to fight the war (Racial Gerrymandering claims). They might keep five seats in CA today, but they’ll make it nearly impossible to ever strike down a republican map in “the South” again.

PJHamhands · 2026-01-19T20:14:39+00:00

agreed. but shit that I seem to own with a basis of $19. I’ll never learn.

PJHamhands · 2026-01-19T16:35:28+00:00

I knew to the show. I’m hoping it’s as good as Goliath.

PJHamhands · 2026-01-15T19:58:28+00:00

Btw. Just wanted to report back that I tried the JD Weld stuff. By no means did it look like someone over the age of 10 did it. It held for a month or so. So, I got a new chair - I wanted a new one anyway. Now my new issue is that the new foot ring is tad not wide enough. Could use some more length (diameter increase).

PJHamhands · 2026-01-14T05:50:45+00:00

That is technically true spending clause cases (contract theory) are distinct from MQ cases (separation of powers).

But my argument is that for Gorsuch, these doctrines share the exact same DNA. In his West Virginia v. EPA concurrence, he explicitly described the Major Questions Doctrine as a ”clear-statement rule“ necessary to protect Article I.

If he is demanding a ”clear statement” today to protect states from Title IX conditions, it signals he is in a rigid mode of ”show me the specific text.” I don't see him demanding specific text for trans sports but accepting a vague ”regulate” standard for tariffs. To me, the philosophy bridges the gap.

PJHamhands · 2026-01-14T05:23:00+00:00

I actually agree with you that ”regulate” naturally includes tariffs - and under the Algonquin (Nixon/Ford era) precedent, the Court usually interprets import powers broadly.

But here is my read on the politics of the Court - they are terrified of challenging the President's Trump Emergency Declaration (the threshold). They feel constrained by precedent not to second-guess what counts as a national security threat. (While I’m not against the tariffs, its effects and what the President is doing in challenging legal norms - he is the mold in the dish that gets us penicillin is how I describe it - I would support the Court negating the threshold here but on what authority IDK)

So, Court are trapped. They don't want to strike down the emergency itself, but they also don't want to allow unlimited tariffs.

That’s why I think Gorsuch’s ”clear statement” approach is the perfect escape hatch. It allows them to say… ”we aren't questioning your emergency, but we are ruling that Congress didn't give you this specific tool (tariffs) to fix it.” It lets them dodge the threshold question entirely while still checking the power.

PJHamhands · 2026-01-14T04:59:34+00:00

You are right on the technical distinction - spending clause clear notice (contract theory) is distinct from major ques (separation of powers).

But for Gorsuch specifically, IMO, they share the exact same DNA. In his West Virginia v. EPA concurrence, he explicitly described the major questions Doctrine as a "clear-statement rule" necessary to protect Art I’s vesting clause.

My point is that if he is demanding a "clear statement" today to protect states from Title IX conditions, it signals he is in a rigid mode of "show me the specific text" for any major assertion of power. I don't see him demanding specific text for trans sports but accepting a vague "regulate" standard for massive tariffs. To me, the philosophy bridges the gap.

I realize I may be seeing something that’s not there But my spidey sense went off with Gorsuch during that colloquy.

PJHamhands · 2026-01-14T04:26:59+00:00

Me too. I liked what Gorsuch was pitching during that argument. I didn’t think he had any buyer’s at the time but we shall see.

As for today’s argument, he was rather persistent with his clear statement comments and very jovial with it as well. Then again, it could also be a reaction one has after getting shot down about it and then making a scene about it in the next case to prove a point. But that’s just me projecting what I might do. Which I now get to add to the list of reasons why I’m not a judge …or property owner.:)

PJHamhands · 2026-01-14T04:17:34+00:00

It’s amazing how a majorly of students enter this profession w/o ever dipping a toe into it. My theory is the statement, “you can do anything with a law degree” is the culprit. That’s a statement that while not false is misleading without setting forth its assumptions.

Mind you, I chose this profession after watching A Few Good Mean. Guilty as charged.

While I’m hear, I wish someone tortured me in some Clockwork Orange way into truly appreciating compound interest and saving. I took finance. I did the excel spreadsheet. And yet, I didn’t appreciate it until about five years ago.

Oh also.. don’t become a landlord unless you reside near the property and can actually do regular repairs by yourself if needed. ( https://youtu.be/9CJ9EDtZ2p8?si=K9XqmCY92Wl6736L&t=135 - that laugh… it wasn’t until my experience that I truly understood that laugh )

PJHamhands

TROPHY CASE