This is actually wrong. By quite a bit. Rarely does the media report on the cases that the Supreme Court rules unanimously on.

Does that statistic account for the restrictions put on them, though? Given the complex web of supervised release, sex offender registries, and other restrictions placed on them, I would expect them to have the lowest recidivism rate.

The media's reporting on legal decisions is often like this. Not sure if it's because they don't have the space to actually explain the decision, because they don't understand it, or because it's easier to turn it into a political argument if you don't explain nuance.

There are a lot of overlapping systems and statutes at the federal and state level. Supervised release may not be for life, for example, but someone might still have to follow state sex offender laws for life. And state sex offender laws are often quite similar, but they still vary by state.

It's called supervised release, at least at the federal level. It's part of their original sentence and can extend to life, so it's not double jeopardy. It's like parole or probation. You're out, but your rights are still restricted and you have to check in with an officer. It's the same as the restrictions about…

You could draw that conclusion about almost all types of popular media though. One person, or a few people, do it really well and then a bunch of less talented people copy them.

First, this really doesn't come out from the questioning. Second, you have limited strikes and you don't know how the other party is going to use their strikes, so you don't know how far down the list of potential jurors you might go. In other words, you might end up with someone you don't want for a good reason and…

They are far more likely to use a strike on you, yes.

Actually, yes. They do. It's a court proceeding, there's no outside time needed. The judge asks most of the questions. The parties then exercise their strikes. If you're going to conduct an entire trial, you try to win, at least out of the basic competitiveness that most lawyers have.

I'm not saying that he doesn't have a good defense attorney, but almost any defense attorney would have used that strategy. There's no reason to risk looking bad on the stand, just make it a referendum on the accuser's credibility and throw whatever doubt you can on it.

Which is a mischaracterization of their job, which is ongoing even on the days they don't have to show up in D.C.

And impractical. You could probably carry a holstered gun safely while playing baseball, but you couldn't play baseball very well.

Clearly they all should have been carrying at their baseball practice. Why did they let themselves be sitting ducks?

They may be working their asses off to make sure nothing actually happens, or to try to pass policies that are awful, but they're still working. The standard for who gets to have fun and who doesn't isn't whether you like the work they're doing.

A lot of them go back to their districts or otherwise leave D.C. during the weekends. Weekday mornings are their best time for practice. Weekday evenings are when most other people do this, and it's for the better that their practices aren't at that time. It would be a circus.

Plus you can be confused and/or angered by all the things they've changed in the movies since then!

That's nearly the last part of the cycle.

That's not the jingle and we'll have to run our commercials twice as often in response.

Is this story over yet? It's not that funny. He's an idiot who tweeted a half complete tweet that ended on a typo. He probably pressed return instead of backspace and then just left it because he's 70 years old.

And someone, somewhere, will buy a Lincoln.