Take a breath, then continue to the National Memo <\/a>link for a excerpt from a Donald Trump-Ted Cruz rally story, suggesting that another lawsuit over the misuse of a song is in the offing!<\/p>\n From Lowering the Bar:<\/p>\n From The National Memo:<\/p>\n Despite the hyperbole, [Ted] Cruz\u2019s speech was a dry and wonkish drone-fest\u00a0compared to that of Donald Trump, whom Cruz introduced as \u201cmy friend.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n The tow-headed\u00a0mogul took the stage to the soaring\u00a0chorus\u00a0of R.E.M\u2019s eschatological Reagan-era ballad \u201cIt\u2019s the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine).\u201d (The notoriously liberal alt-rock act, which disbanded in 2011,\u00a0has had to deal with\u00a0conservatives using their music before<\/a>.)<\/em><\/p>\n UPDATE 9\/12\/2015<\/strong>. Yup, it had to happen:<\/p>\n R.E.M. to politicians using their music\u2014”go fuck yourselves!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Source: R.E.M has a NSFW message to Donald Trump after he uses their song at a Tea Party rally<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n This almost makes me feel bad for conservatives. What majestic, rally-quality pop songs would they have legitimate, unchallenged access to? Isn’t Ted Nugent <\/a>one of them? Indeed he is, so why aren’t they all using one of his songs? Which are…What are<\/em> Ted Nugent’s songs?<\/p>\n UPDATE 9\/11\/2015. <\/strong>Re that judge who wouldn’t issue a heterosexual divorce decision because of, well, here’s the Brennan Center’s crisp, rational diagnosis:<\/p>\n TN Judge Holds Obergefell v. Hodges Also Strips State\u2019s Power Over Divorce<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n In Tennessee, Chancellor Court Judge Jeffrey Atherton recently denied Thomas and Pamela Bumgardner\u2019s request for a divorce based on his conclusion that the Supreme Court\u2019s recent ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges took away the state\u2019s power to regulate marriage and thus divorce, writes Lyle Denniston for the Constitution Daily<\/a>. In his decision, Judge Atherton wrote, \u201csince only our federal courts are wise enough to address the issues of marriage \u2013 and therefore contested divorces \u2013 it only follows that this court\u2019s jurisdiction has been preempted.\u201d Denniston writes that he believes Judge Atherton \u201csimply got that decision wrong.\u201d He explains that \u201c[s]ince the Supreme Court\u2019s 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court has claimed the final word on what the Constitution means, so state provisions that conflict must yield to those interpretations.\u201d State governments, Denniston continues, remain \u201cthe primary authority to define marriage and its benefits\u201d as the Supreme Court ruled two years ago United States v. Windsor. \u00a0Denniston concludes that Judge Atherton\u2019s remarks about the impact of Obergefell were political, not judicial.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" One of the many reasons I love Kevin Underhill, the maestro of Lowering the Bar, is because he’s willing to ramble esoterically, and his rambles take him–and me–many marvelous places. In one of his Assorted Stupidities today, he goes from … Continue reading \n
\n
\n
\n
SUPREME COURT<\/strong><\/b><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.brennancenter.org\/sites\/default\/files\/analysis\/Buying_Time\/Panorama_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_Building_at_Dusk.jpg\")
<\/em><\/p>\n