|
russms.bsky.social@russms.bsky.social |
73 followers 368 following 264 posts
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Not just doubling down but faceplanting repeatedly as the people on other side of the debate about whether it’s descriptively ok to call Trump a fascist keep making guys like him and Samuel Moyn look like clowns. It’s clearly a touchy subject for him at this point
1 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
This reads like one of the examples of bad writing in “Politics and the English” by Orwell. And it checks out: he doesn’t wanna say directly “I hate LGBT (especially T) people and want to make them miserable,” so he dresses up his true belief in gobbledygook www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-f...
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Like yeah the individual decision won’t affect climate change at all but it’s still the right thing to do
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Right wingers like this guy love to pretend not to understand that there may be a moral component to how individuals approach collective action problems. This crap is similar to snottily dismissing, say, the act of buying an EV or a hybrid instead of a gas-guzzler as merely performative
1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
The onion doing a much better job conveying the stakes in the election than the NYT
0 replies 3 reposts 1 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Not knowledgeable enough about the military, but one way I expect this to play out is that if Trump tries to do stuff like illegally purge agencies of civil servants, the Roberts court will thwart any attempts by Congress to investigate it
0 replies 1 reposts 0 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
In that case, the commander of a navy frigate intercepted a ship on the orders of the secretary of the navy, but the secretary’s order was inconsistent with the relevant law passed by Congress. Chief Justice Marshall said the commander was liable for carrying out an illegal act, even with the order
1 replies 0 reposts 17 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Not that this court will give a crap but the Supreme Court early on expressly held otherwise—which of course will show again that the court’s new reading of presidential accountability is antithetical to that at the time of the founding. (We know that but still.) en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_...
1 replies 1 reposts 23 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
True but there are usually constraints, and judicial amendments work in practice the way changes to common law work. This is a radical departure from what the text says, what the framers understood it to mean and what legal scholars all thought the law was in a way that I think even Dobbs wasn’t
1 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Also, lying about Biden as flagrantly as Republicans do about Trump is bad
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Also, lying about Biden as flagrantly as Republicans do about Trump is bad
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
FWIW I’ve changed my mind about this somewhat. I’ve come around to the “Biden should drop out” stance, and I don’t know how that can happen without intense pressure from his own party that plays out in the press. It’s a high stakes approach but probably necessary.
2 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
And honestly, right now, Dems should propose legislation saying that the president cannot order seal team 6 to murder a political rival and that if he does a federal prosecutor can use words and deeds in an official capacity to establish the requisite mens rea
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Very true and I have plenty of objections to the amendment process. But the point is that rewriting the constition normally does—and should—require something more than 6 people who watch too much Fox News just wanting something
0 replies 0 reposts 27 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
That would be fine by me! But even if Dems come around to court expansion, I find it hard to see that happening. I think comprehensive legislation regulating executive abuses followed by an engineered test case is probably the way to go about it
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
That assumes any law regulating the presidential abuses would be in direct contravention of this ruling, which I think it would have to be. Anyway you could get it overturned that way and I think it's an easier path to get lib jurists on board
0 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I have a hard time seeing the libs doing that. A law passed by Congress regulating executive abuse/corruption would be better than not having one, so I think Dems should do that first. Then maybe the administration that signs it could engineer a test case (get a parking ticket or something idk)
1 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Imo the thing to do is expand the court and then pass a law comprehensively regulating executive corruption/abuse of power, in direct contravention of this ruling. You'd need a test case but maybe one can be engineered (make the VP get a parking ticket or something, someone clever can cook one up)
1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I suppose, but if you can get a new court, why not just overturn it outright? The dissents were livid enough that the libs would might be on board with doing so
2 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Six people did the thing that is supposed to require 2/3 of both chambers of Congress and 3/4 of the states to do
9 replies 137 reposts 676 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I hate this court so much and even I am astonished by this case. It writes new provisions into Art 2 of the constitution that were unnecessary to decide the case at hand and that cannot be repealed by legislative action or even undone without a new case of presidential law breaking before the court
5 replies 52 reposts 330 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
The 19th century too but I think (hope) there’s at least a somewhat broader understanding of that part among non right wingers…
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
A big part of the conservative movement is retconning 20th century American history with pure ideology: the New Deal was tyranny, Joe McCarthy was good, Richard Nixon was treated unfairly and his only real sin was not being conservative enough. SCOTUS is giving this retcon the force of law
1 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
Jonathan Ladd
@jonmladd.bsky.social
[ View ] |
The 14th Amendment says if you were involved in an insurrection you can't be president. SCOTUS said they won't allow anyone to enforce that because of reasons they made up. The Constitution doesn't say the president is immune from criminal law. SCOTUS decided he is because of reasons they made up.
72 replies 1116 reposts 3719 likes
|
bumpin that (x8)
@usspcrichardandson.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I don't understand how Sotomayor wrote the dissent she did without announcing her immediate retirement from the Court contingent upon the confirmation of a successor.
4 replies 6 reposts 39 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Exactly. We need (1) court expansion and (2) the passage of laws in direct contravention of rulings like this, so that a court staffed with justices picked by a president with popular legitimacy can overturn them. Don't see any other feasible path to reigning in the abuses of a right wing court
0 replies 1 reposts 1 likes
|
Radley Balko
@radleybalko.bsky.social
[ View ] |
My first read: If a president commits crimes unrelated to him being the most powerful person in the world, he can be prosecuted. But if explicitly uses his powers to commit crimes, he is at least presumptively, and probably absolutely immune from prosecution. I mean, holy shit.
28 replies 218 reposts 938 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Pretty weak stuff imo
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Chris Hayes
@chrislhayes.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Shorter Supreme Court this term: criminal law is for little people.
38 replies 224 reposts 1241 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Biden needs to be screaming that a corrupt far-right court just rewarded Trump with immunity for serious crimes as a thank you for giving them enough members to overturn Roe v Wade. Too bad he's busy having his surrogates send out emails to donors convincing them that actually he's still alive
1 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Maybe it *was* a one-off, but the burden of proof should be on him to demonstrate that. He needs to start making *unscripted* public appearances. Give the NYT the sit down interview it wants so badly. Etc. If he can handle that sort of stuff then he should stay. If he can't, he should step aside
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Oh I'm not underestimating the electoral effect of the replacement tumult at all. My thinking is based on my belief that this debate wasn't a one-off and that he's likely to dig himself a deeper hole as a result of his condition
1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Suppose Biden had a stroke. Would your second sentence still apply? I don't think so. I think if he made an announcement along the lines of what I contemplated (my health took a turn for the worse and I'm being open about it) it wouldn't be fatal to his replacement
1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I'm not here saying it wouldn't be messy and there's no chance of a huge drag on the new ticket that doesn't show up in polling now. I just think there is a good chance Biden is so impaired right now he's not capable of campaigning aggressively and he'll only get worse between now and November
1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Doesn't need to be "we". Biden can say, "I am proud of my administration's sweeping accomplishments but my health has recently deteriorated unexpectedly and I therefore think it would be best for the country if I do not run for a second term."
2 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
We're not at the point where it's impossible for Biden to pass the election reins to Harris yet (though we're close), and I'm afraid that status quo bias, not a good faith belief in Biden's inner circle that he's the one best poised to win, will be the thing that keeps him atop the ticket
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Indeed. I want to beat Trump, even if the person to do it isn't the one I'd most want to be president if it were up to me. The only viable options seem to be either Biden or Kamala. My feeling rn is that Kamala is the better strategic choice of the two, but am I sure? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
1 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
To me, yes. And I think there would be a lot of continuity with Kamala Harris as president
1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Lotta people like to hate on stancil but he was beating the “Biden is too old” drum a long time ago. Now he’s correctly noting that we’ve gotten to a point where it’s a lot harder to fix the problem!
0 replies 0 reposts 7 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Yup. I’m personally leaning toward Biden stepping aside and letting Kamala run, but a it’s telling how a lot of online leftists are more interested in maximizing their chances of being able to say “told you so” than in, you know, beating Trump
2 replies 0 reposts 8 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
If that was an aberration, get him out there on 60 minutes, and yes, give the NYT its precious sit down interview. If Biden can’t do that stuff, then Kamala is better to be on the ballot, I don’t think it’s a hard call, and I’d be very happy with the switch, even though she’s not #1 on my wishlist
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
The Dem nominee needs to be running aggressively, like someone who is (in fact) behind. Is Biden up to the task? Idk, but it sure doesn’t seem like it, based on Thursday!
1 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I’ve moved closer to the “Biden needs to go” camp over the course of the weekend and I am fine with Kamala as the replacement. Is she the best possible Dem? Probably no, but I believe she has a lot more upside than Biden at this point
1 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
Matt Crespi
@mattcrespi.bsky.social
[ View ] |
NYC congestion pricing was supposed to go into effect today. Let's see what Governor Kathy Hochul -- who intervened to prevent the policy leaving a multi-billion dollar hole in the MTA's budget and canceling service improvements and needed station upgrades -- is up to. Oh. Oh no.
5 replies 12 reposts 61 likes
|
Assistant to the Professor
@darinself.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Good news everyone, John Roberts who called the science behind determining gerrymanders "sociological gobbledygook" just gave himself the power to rule on extremely technical matters over the expertise of people who have dedicated their lives to mastering administrative tasks.
8 replies 105 reposts 364 likes
|
Michael Tae Sweeney
@mtsw.bsky.social
[ View ] |
if Biden wants to stay in the race he needs to do this. Just flood the zone with media appearences and get people used to stammering old guy Biden as something that's normal (or ideally a better version where he's not stammering old guy). Hiding out won't work.
15 replies 44 reposts 255 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Less than a 10 point victory over a dyed in the wool fascist in New York freaking state. If we’re gonna have a Dem who sucks can we at least have one who isn’t in jeopardy of losing to some maga freak in 2026
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Gonna one up this and say that I don’t know if Biden should step aside but I think that Kathy Hochul definitely should!!
1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
And to Lund’s point, Trump just got convicted of 34 felonies and his surrogates went on tv right after and said with a straight face that it actually helps him. Biden had a weak debate performance and Dem sources are acting like ICBMs are on the way. Like come on, try the first model out for once
0 replies 1 reposts 1 likes
|
|
@russms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Exactly. At the very least, I do wish Dem operatives would keep their panic to themselves and not text every freaking reporter in every DC bureau in their phone. I don’t know what the effect of the debate will be but Dems screaming to the media that it was bad can’t possibly help
1 replies 1 reposts 4 likes