William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts
The Justice Department is going after James Comey for posting a photo of seashells arranged to spell "8647" on a beach somewhere, asserting it was a death threat on President Trump. Apparently this is due to the old use of the term "86" to do away with and "47" for Donald Trump's completely illegitimate but widely accepted illegal claim to be President.
It wasn't.
This prosecution will go nowhere whatsoever, but it is more evidence that everyone in the Trump Administration is essentially a fascist with no regard for reality or the rule of law right now. We are in monumentally dangerous territory. It's 1534 in the United States with Donald Trump our King Henry VIII.
And the spirt of the age has spread:
What Gray did was flat out illegal. Gray is relying, in essence, on the advice of the Attorney General and when that's a defense, the attorney client privilege is waived. The AG's office knows that, but it has to defend the privilege It's being pretty assertive about it.
Gray needs to suffer the penalty of the law here.
Nobody is more opposed to abortion than I am. I wouldn't allow for the largely bogus "rape and incest" exceptions that many people will. But this is really beyond the Pale. Powell should be ashamed of itself for even appoint this guy to its city council.
Elsewhere, in a nation where we brought a modern justice system, it's still functioning.
South Korean court extends prison sentence for wife of ousted president
May 5, 2026
Headline in the CST:
Judges reject Trump push to obtain state voter rolls
But of course our Secretary of State, Chuck "If you disagree with me you are a radical communist, fascist, monarchist, podiatrist" Gray just handed Wyoming's over.
May 16, 2026
Smith hasn't been confirmed as US Attorney for Wyoming yet.
May 21, 2026
It appears that Trump's settlement deal in his IRS suit may actually prove to be a bridge too far for Senate Republicans.
The deal, which frankly is the epitome of corruption, would create a slush fund to pay pardoned January 6 criminals for their inconvenience in being prosecuted as traitors to their country. That's what they are, and they should not have been pardoned, but Trump sought to go one step beyond that and reward the pack of Horst Wessels. Frankly, as soon as possible, the pardons should be unrung as illegitimate (Trump isn't a legitimate President and can't pardon anyone). Anyhow, Republicans are openly balking on the slush fund, amazingly. It must be really angering constituents, or just too much to stomach.
Indeed, they not only are balking, they sidetracked the ICE funding bill, showing that they're actually willing to do something that is guaranteed to send the Orange Mussolini into a screaming fit, but the fit will pit Trump's ICE demands up against his now open and obvious corruption and the hemorrhaging of the US budget. It'll be interesting to see where this goes, as once they break with Trump, their relationship with Trump is broken, and if he doesn't come to heel, they can't.
By way of an analogous example, Massie wouldn't come to heel on the Epstein files, but he was one man. Once it's a pack, it tends to grow.
So, a match is on.
May 29, 2026
A court ruled that Trump's adding his name to the Kennedy Center was illegal and ordered it removed within two weeks.
A different judge enjoined the IRS settlement slush fund from going forward.
June 2, 2026
Trump's insurrectionist slush fund seemed to be getting questioned by the court and now the Attorney General is saying it won't occur.
While Wyoming's Congressional delegation didn't protest it, a lot of Republicans in Congress were finding it to be a bridge too far.
June 3, 2026
Lawyers ask Wyoming Supreme Court to intervene in Gray voter data complaint
June 4, 2026
A Wyoming district court held that the whiney fascist crybabies leading the GOP have to follow state law and seat elected Republican precinct members, something another court did two years ago. The state central committee didn't want to do so as that keeps it from picking fascists.
It argues that its a private entity and doesn't have to follow state law. . . except of course when it comes to getting preferential places on ballots, having the state run party elections for it, and getting to pick members of certain offices when they become vacant. It's fine with all of that.
Satire aside, this would have been an opportunity for the Court to wipe all of that out, and it should have.
June 5, 2026
Wyoming GOP sues state, challenges constitutionality of ban on pre-primary candidate endorsements
All they really have to do is to quit having state funded primaries.
June 15, 2026
Last Friday retired Judge Campbell struck down a series of provisions regarding abortion. There was some chance that these would survive challenge, as they did not directly restrict abortion, such as there being a time delay after seeking one, an ultrasound, etc., but he ruled that the Wyoming Supreme Court's earlier decision meant that these were in the nature of health care and could not stand.
I disagree with him on that, but given the absurd Wyoming constitutional provision on health care I've addressed here before, and the S.Ct. decision, it's an understandable result. It'll go on to be challenged at the Wyoming Supreme Court level, probably.
I keep wondering if anyone has argued the true existential aspect of the questions. I don't know if that's been done or not.
On the nature of things, one of the local news outlets has had photos of a woman protesting holding a sign that says "Forced Birth = Violence".
Almost all abortions in the US are due to people who just had sex, and then sex resulted in what it results in. That's not forced birth, that's nature. The common "well what about ten year olds" and the like brings up a case scenario that's exceedingly rare. The reply to that would be to ask that person if they're opposed to all other abortions, which they are not.
Even at that, however, killing is killing. It would be just as logical to go out and determine every living American who came about due to rape or tike and shoot them dead now. Yes, rape and incest are horrible. Murder is probably the ultimate horrible, however.
Apparently the S.Ct asked, in its opinion, why those challenging abortion in Wyoming don't seek to amend the constitution. It was a constitutional amendment that got us here, so that makes sense. So far nobody's lifted a finger to do that. The likely reason is that they know that amending the provision to allow for making abortions illegal won't pass in the state. Instead, they feel their odds are better litigating about it, or complaining about it.
On other matters, the case challenging the primary system filed by Skovgaard is a pro se case, as I suspected, meaning it has about zero chance of actually succeeding.
June 18, 2026
Gordon sues Board of Equalization, asks court to enforce property tax cap
In other news, some members of the WFC are criticizing Wyoming courts as "activist", an absolutely absurd accusation, for not upholding the most recent abortion laws when the legislature itself is completely responsible for the constitutional amendment that causes those laws to do down in defeat.
The legislature could forward a repeal of that amendment, but it won't, as it's afraid that would go down in defeat. The whole thing is an example of playing a stupid game and winning a stupid prize.
June 19, 2026
Court sides with challenger to law banning drug users from possessing guns
What could go wrong?
On the topic mentioned above, we'll note that that you heard it here first, but now the drumbeat pointing out the hypocrisy is getting pretty loud:
Tom Lubnau: Sure, Pass Unconstitutional Bills And Blame 'Activist Judges'
Lubnau really throws the gauntlet down, stating:
The fix is simple. Pass a proposed constitutional amendment. I'll draft it for them: Article I, §38 is amended to add subsection (e): Abortion is not healthcare for purposes of this Article.
Come on Sanchez-Williams. Come on Bear. But your legislating where you claimed values are.
June 29, 2026
A good result:
Court prevents Trump from firing Fed governor
A 5 to 4 decision, with Thomas writing the dissent.
A bad result:
Court allows Trump to fire FTC commissioner and overturns major restraint on presidential power
A great result, but again 5 to 4:
Justices uphold state law allowing for late-arriving mail-in ballots
Trump's already bitching about this one, complaining that this provides why the SAVE Act needs to be passed.
And another good result:
Supreme Court will not consider $5 million verdict against Trump
Cont:
Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s order ending birthright citizenship
Yikes, that was the right result, but razor thin.
Cont:
And a bad one:
Justices strike down campaign finance law
Cont:
And a correct one:
Court rules that states can exclude transgender athletes from girls’ and women’s sports teams
Last edition:
