Greetings, and welcome to the start of the work week. It’s one day later than usual, and thus the mock draft is one day later than usual. This is for obvious reasons, namely that there’s far more participation when we’re all “working”, and also because tomorrow, if things go according to plan, I’ll likely be carrying a decent buzz from attending the Willimantic Boombox Parade, followed by a sort of wake for a local character I knew from the bars, who always referred to me as “Mr. Attorney General”, and who will be missed. I will raise a glass or two to him tomorrow for sure.

As you may have noticed, the Supreme Court recent overturned Roe v. Wade in the well-reasoned Dobbs decision. Ignoring the silly practice of stare decisis, (a Latin term meaning ‘Samuel Alito is a right-wing religious zealot masquerading as a judge) six justices of the United States Supreme Court found the courage to, inter alia, (a Latin term meaning ‘Clarence Thomas has the ethics of an alley-cat during mating season’), approvingly cite the works of Matthew Hale, a 17th-century English jurist who, inter alia, (See ‘Thomas, Clarence, morals of an alley-cat, supra’), held that there was no such thing as marital rape, and presided over at least two “trials” that resulted in women being hung for the crime of, (checks notes), witchcraft.

As an aside, one good thing about Matthew Hale, the elder, (apparently there’s a US Matthew Hale of more recent vintage who is a white supremacist, and whom the Supreme Court has not favorably cited. Yet.), is that when he died it took him ten months and was apparently very painful.

Truly an outstanding moment is United States jurisprudence, (a legal term meaning ‘please do not nominate members of Catholic cults to the Supreme Court‘) that won’t shred whatever credibility the Supreme Court might have left.

There have been many reactions to this decision, surely all of which have been calm and well-reasoned, but for our purposes we’re concerned with the reaction to a couple of anti-choice couples posting pictures of themselves holding signs to the effect that they would adopt your baby, would you want to carry it for nine months, go through the birthing process, (there is a lot of blood and a truly surprising amount of shit involved), and then give your baby to a couple of lunatics.

I see no way that would end badly.

Not surprisingly the internet did it’s thing and suddenly there were all sorts of offers from disreputable types to adopt your baby. Our own Rikki-Tikki-Deadly was an early and enthusiastic participant, and it was that participation that led to his suggesting this week’s topic: People You Would Not Want To Adopt Your Baby.

As usual, the suggester of the week’s topic gets the first pick, as long as they show up on time, or read their direct messages in the back channel at all. /glares on Ontarionese.

Rules ares simple: Who would be the worst person or persons you can think of to adopt your child, assuming your rights to an abortion have been stripped by a Court citing 17th century witch hunters as a source? It can be a single person, it can be a couple, it can be a group.

Rikki, as it happens, has already given me his first pick, so without further ado, the first pick in this week’s draft are

Yikes. Good luck, kid.

With the second pick I’ll take Alex Jones.

Jones’s first wife apparently agrees with me, having divorced him in 2015 and having sought sole custody of their three children, saying inter alia, (See Alito, Samuel, religious zealot, supra.) that Jones was “not a stable person” and possibly engaged in felonious conduct.. Even taking that away, just imagine that face looking at you when you strike out in a Little League game.

The rest of you are on the clock. Please wait ten picks, or, (in honor of Roe v. Wade), 24 minutes after your last pick before making your next pick.