When I hear that our Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that police need a warrant to enter someone's home, I first imagine that unanimous must mean narrow, and that turns out to be the case, as our Court actually ruled that the "community care-taker" exception carved out in Cady v. Dombroski doesn't apply to searches police conduct within a home -- Cady concerned a car search, after all. It's still a good ruling, not least because I'd prefer that police didn't have as broad a "community caretaker" role as they currently have.
C. Michael White at The Conversation wonders "Why Is the FDA Funded in Part by the Companies It Regulates?" It is an excellent question! And I'm not satisfied with the given answer (that the AIDS epidemic prompted the passage of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, ostensibly so that AIDS patients could get medication faster). I mean, was the time it took to get a drug right really the problem there? And if so, how did "funding with user fees" solve it? Are we sure small-government ideologues didn't have more to do with it? I guess it's good that this topic can bring up more excellent questions.
This Tucson Weekly article asks, "Police Keep Tabs on Social Media, But Who Keeps Tabs on Cops?" That is another excellent question! Sadly, the answer is "politicians who don't know how to do it, don't want to do it, or are afraid to do it." Also sadly, the right-wing activist from AZ Patriots says she knows police monitor her, too -- but this knowledge clearly hasn't helped her grow as a person, since she says "sometimes, you know, we feel like we’re being targets ourselves," as if it's OK to target other people, or as if it's utterly incomprehensible police would target her.
Steven Rosenfeld runs down the nuts-and-bolts problems with the Arizona "audit" of Maricopa County votes. That the "auditors" are Trumpholes you already knew, and you probably also knew about the blue pens and the UV lights -- but you may not have known that they're not following basic auditing procedures, like reviewing poll tape voting totals or setting aside problematic ballots after you've figured out the voter's intent. Thus they're virtually assured of coming up with vote totals "in conflict" with the final tally. Why, it's almost like that's the whole idea!
When I hear that Sen. Graham (E-SC) has said that he "accept(s) the results" of the 2020 election, all I can say is wow, only four months after January 6 and six months after the election, Sen. Graham acts like admitting water is wet is some great gift to the American people. Remember when they wanted us all to "accept the results" the day after Election Day 2016? Why is anyone a Republican again? After all, I would think, if you're conservative, you would not want to be associated with sore losers and reality-deniers.
Finally, let's again dismiss the idea that a "Trump defense" should get January 6 defendants off the hook for what they did that day. Mr. Trump can face charges of incitement to riot, but it takes two to tango here. And I really wish they wouldn't bring up a defendant's "Asperger's Syndrome" -- I put it in quotation marks because those are the lawyers' words, where everyone else's word would be "autism." As folks who watched last week's SNL have likely already said, just because you're autistic, it doesn't mean you're not also an asshole.