I didn’t hit a paywall, but here’s the 12ft.io link

I think she wants you to just rack up a bunch of medical debt so she can cancel it, gotta think in loopholes like the big companies

Again, we are having this conversation in a Beehaw thread; if you don’t understand the significance of that then I don’t know what else to say.

Would love to hear your thoughts in more depth on this. What is the significance?

transphobia is not acceptable on this instance, be(e) better

Fantastic article, thanks!

This is blatant doublespeak, and has been removed because of such.

I can’t imagine who possibly lobbied for this and why it’s focused only on artists and journalists

I’m not sure why there’s the need to rebrand confidence to the term dominance, but I generally agree with the author. With that being said, I’m not sure I fully understand what dominance means or where the data comes from. It feels like there might be some cherry-picking here, because upon reflection I think even many centrist dems do draw hard lines in the sand on certain issues. In general I agree with the praise for MLK and for being more uncompromising on the issues that matter, and I also agree strongly with how important a positive uplifting message (It’s how AOC and many of the true progressives got elected) is and how very few democrats actually execute on this.

The entire dissent was a solid read, if you’re into that kind of stuff. Just another little choice quote which made me chuckle:

In sum, the majority today endorses an expansive vision of Presidential immunity that was never recognized by the Founders, any sitting President, the Executive Branch, or even President Trump’s lawyers, until now. Settled under- standings of the Constitution are of little use to the majority in this case, and so it ignores them

Fantastic points, and I think that’s touched upon when the author talks about ‘brokenness’ towards the end. There’s systems that don’t work, and it’s not just issues of regulation that are needed to fix it. Much like progressives in the early 1900s had to radically rethink entire systems (new deal) we need similar ideas today to fix problems which are multifaceted and difficult. Affordable housing is infrastructure, unaffordable housing is not.

To be fair, congress could pass a law that explicitly states what the old Chevron decision did, that these agencies have power to set standards. That wouldn’t solve the broken court which should have been packed as soon as Biden took office but it would at least explicitly stop the federalist anti regulatory stance as it would be in the word of law.

any president can

oh nooo a warning whatever will they do

you can pack the court at anytime Joe, how about now

Locking comments, this has gone off the rails and devolved into hurling insults

There is no need to be tolerant towards the intolerant. If someone says they want to do some ethnic cleansing, that’s not exactly a nice gesture and pushing back against that message is both cool and good.

I don’t want to discount the findings too harshly, because I believe that democrats have a ton of issues with their voters in general and can only go on promising everything but delivering nothing for so long before people wisen up, but I do want to just gently remind everyone how accurate polling was in the 2016 and 2020 election cycles and its general decline among the population as a way to understand how people vote. Polling groups have not adapted to the times and frequently demand far too much out of a population which is overburdened and simply not interested in engaging with pollsters through archaic mediums and conventional means of identifying who is eligible to be polled are not applicable to a modern populace.

Well stated. Once again, thank you for all the hard work you do around here!

So I’m not familiar with why that particular judge was criticized, but you’ll note that the entirety of arguments and discussion surround the brief and response letters which were submitted to the supreme court. It’s possible that Cannon was stepping outside what was presented, which would warrant criticism. The supreme court never steps outside what is presented, except when it’s necessary to understand what is being presented - for example they may call upon other legal text or rulings in order to fully frame what is and is not in scope with regards to the presented case or to understand precisely what a particular lawyer is arguing for or against.

But I also think that the fact that the supreme court is the final court which gets to have say on a matter lends them to pontificate in depth about some issues that other courts may not be given latitude to do the same because it may address issues which are currently working their way through the court system or may be called upon as a matter of jurisprudence in the future. The entire text of every decision they make can have consequences on lower courts and understanding the limits and the spirit of law they weigh in on and as of such it’s important to fully understand the exact claims being made and appropriately scope where the response lies and whether certain issues could or should be weighed in upon during that case.

That is super common in supreme court cases. They really like to explore the legality of each potential argument in a lot of depth.