Here’s LSU Coach Brian Kelly in his post-game press conference as he discusses the Tigers’ chances of making the 2024 NCAA playoffs:
…Oops, sorry, that was another coach at another time and place.
But, hey! It could well have been Kelly after LSU’s humiliating loss to ‘Bama in Tiger Stadium last Saturday – especially after top honchos at the Ole War Skule cratered to a two-bit politician’s demands that a live tiger, albeit not Mike VII, but a borrowed (or rented) cat from Rhonda Santis’s state of Florida, be ushered into the stadium before adoring (a better word being sympathetic) LSU fans.
Could it possibly get any worse?
Well….yes, it can.
U.S. District Judge John deGravelles on Tuesday, in a 177-page decision, figuratively knocked over the easel that Landry intended to use to display the TEN COMMANDMENTS in each and every public classroom in Louisiana.
Saying that posting the commandments would make children a “captive audience” (sort of like 100,000 LSU fans jammed into Tiger Stadium last Saturday night), the judge said the law was “facially unconstitutional,” adding that Louisiana’s law was in direct conflict with a 1980 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a similar law in Kentucky.
Landry’s sock puppet Attorney General Liz Murrill said that while the disastrous Alabama decision is final now that the loaner tiger has been returned to Florida, the state would “immediately appeal” deGravelle’s preliminary injunction, saying, “We strongly disagree with the court’s decision.”
Of course, she does and of course there will be an appeal.
How else can all those attorneys who contributed to the campaigns of her and her boss earn their fees? They’re gonna reap financial windfalls litigating this issue for years to come.
Wait. You mean you actually thought those campaign contributions were made to advance good, clean, honest government? That’s so cute. You probably learned that in high school civics (if they even still teach that). But this is the real world.
Louisiana Voice 
well said.
Romney Stubbs
The “judicial philosophy” among the current majority on the Supreme Court has a two word response for legal precedence – wrongly decided – which only requires the opinions of compliant justices willing to pervert the Constitution in search of a rationalizing argument. The current Court has no respect for precedence, thus undermining all existing law. There is no telling what it might overturn next or who or what it may consider to be above the law entirely. It overturned Roe. It grabbed for itself the authority to determine the scope of government agencies. Clarence Thomas has gone so far as to publicly invite certain issues to come before the Court again. And then there’s immunity for presidents, which is really immunity for Trump since no other president has ever needed it before and, hopefully, will ever need it in the future. But I’d say Landry and Murrill have good reason to feel confident. Besides paying off their donors they may actually win.