Re: “don’t cheer for your national team” discourse.

i’m so sorry but as a jew i fear this is the catholic version of the classic @averyedison.com post

I have tears in my eyes with the alt text

So, this is in print now. Title pretty much says it all. virginialawreview.org/articles/abo...

i truly don’t think you can understand the intimate technical details of how things work at prisons without becoming an abolitionist. so many of the rules that govern these people’s everyday lives are just fucking mean man like there’s so obviously no rehabilitative reasoning to any of them

ashes in my mouth

some amazing things happening over on threads — ever since they “shut down CERN”

They like Trump. They want to help him rule us like a king

if I were an elected representative and my constituents were coming up and saying "our daughter can't go to college unless she gets an athletic scholarship" I would be like "this is why we need universal free college" not "we'll pretend to solve this by being cruel to trans people." crazy right

Ad Rock: you can disagree with the current All: POPE MCA: but if you push his buttons then you’re a All: DOPE Mike D: ordain yourself a bishop and you’re All: SCHISMATIC Ad Rock: excommunication is All: AUTOMATIC

this doesn't even have the full context which makes it funnier

leadership affirmatively bringing the Laken Riley Act to the floor, with Schumer voting on it in committee, was more or less my breaking point.

Very thankful for this letter to Becky Pepper-Jackson (the 16 year-old trans girl SCOTUS ruled against yesterday) from James Dale, a gay man whose expulsion from the Boy Scouts was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2000.

it’s an announcement all right but i’m not sure corruption is the thing it’s an announcement of

so many people have basically memed themselves into a sort of left-Vermuele presidency where you harness the imperial presidency for the "left" instead of, you know, re-empowering congress

my response to “I’m gay, not queer” is “ok have fun!” but god forbid they just leave it at that, they gotta be like “no you don’t understand, I’m saying you shouldn’t be allowed to be queer”

This is cope. It was, in fact, *incredibly* radical and subversive to be an out gay person for most of American history. Casting yourself as a pick-me and publicly shaming other LGBT people for Doing Activism Wrong is not going to make the bigots like you. You are doing the bigots' work for them.

Stiff competition, but for me, birthright citizenship is the worst case the Supreme Court decided this term. Even though it came out the right way, learning that 4 of 9 justices are fully in "the Constitution means whatever Mister Trump tweets" territory is...really alarming.

They lost in family court; But they won't lose on the pickleball court.

No legislative veto. Hampered oversight. No agencies outside of presidential control. No attempt to meaningfully enforce the power of the purse statutes. This is the Court’s doing.

4/4 Congress is figured as a branch that needs to *be constrained*, but it is not a branch that can legitimately constrain the presidency. This is not new--as I've repeatedly argued, it is very characteristic of how this Court sees Congress--but it is worth noting.

3/ What is the implication? Just that--consistent with the literature on judicial self-aggrandizement--Roberts understands whatever (minimal) constraints on the presidency there are to be those imposed by the Court alone.

What does Jake Tapper consider a good use of his attention as a primetime cable news host? Well, here he is asking Dan Goldman, who lost his seat to Mamdani-endorsed Brad Lander by 31 points, if he thinks Zohran Mamdani is a secret antisemite.

One thing that's undeniably true is that throughout all of 2023 and 2024 we were told that if we wanted better politics on Palestine we need to elect better Democrats and now that we're doing that we're being told not to do that lol

The collective journalistic freakout over someone disliking a cafeteria sandwich at Oberlin or some Yale students asking their peers to be less racist at Halloween has generated far more copy and uproar than multiple universities illegally firing faculty for nonconservative speech they disliked.

Our wizard masters no longer feel the need to explain themselves when they issue edicts to us

what if "I don't like this any more than you do, but there is no cure, so please try to overlook my unfortunate condition" isn't the best or only argument for queer liberation

here is what i think: we're not consumers or spectators, we are participants with agency. you should not hope that democrats will do anything. you must work to force them to do the right thing. the odds are long, but we are far from the first americans to face long odds. we will win.

It is grimly hilarious how much of Kavanaugh’s dissen-currence is just absolutely free-floating Framer telepathy citing to nothing but Ouija v. Board. Like five sentence in a row of “presumably the Framers would not have wanted…”. Textualism!

ha ha ha ha ha oh NOW he's talking about the subject matter of Dred Scott, and he's like "I'm not gonna come out and say it, but it seems to me that Dred Scott was rightly decided"

NYC housing things ppl keep getting wrong in the context of the rent freeze, a thread:

But the vanity that propels three well-intentioned justices to empower our shared foes, just because the alternative is sacrificing the constitutional rights of their place, can't go unremarked. It's disappointing, it's dangerous, and it's something any court reform proposal will need to address.

The six reactionary justices deserve condemnation far beyond any of this, obviously. They are engaged in a wicked project to harm the vulnerable, to destroy democracy and the rule of law in this country. They do this because they will evil and hate good.

In so doing, they prop up the illusion that the Court today is legitimate. They will not do otherwise, they cannot bring the Court into disrepute and give up their prestige. They repair the jurisprudential fabric in which the right cloaks its malfeasance. They defend the Court over the law.

The partial dissents in BPJ are a reminder that even the Supreme Court justices on the side of good are incurably poisoned by a slobbering devotion to the prestige of the Court and the pretense that it is not exercising power in the rawest sense; that they will always side with The Court over us.

really cannot be emphasized enough that the drafters of the birthright clause very much considered cases analogous to undocumented immigrants and *included them too*

That's right.

Deadline today at 5:00pm: If you are on the NY Essential Plan and have a health vulnerability in extreme heat, you are eligible for a free air conditioner, installation included. Info and to apply:

two things. first, always an irony that alito recapitulates the exact same arguments made against his immigrant forbearers. second, if this is all the 14th amendment did it would not have repudiated dred scott

people got mad at me yesterday when i said the dems were not ready to take court reform seriously. 5-4 for non-racial citizenship is not a win, it's a reprieve bsky.app/profile/schu...

Conservatives don't believe in living constitutionalism! the constitution is dead dead dead! they believe in UNDEAD constitutionalism. It's very different bsky.app/profile/kate...

Basically the Supreme Court is 5-4 on whether America is white man's country

This really depends on who is dissenting. I would not recommend this for the birthright citizenship case, for example, because Thomas and Alito are fucking liars.

we're all doing great today here folks. In fact we're doing better than possibly anyone has ever done before

Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion attempts to divine the intentions and desires of the Fourteenth Amendment’s drafters without a single citation of anything they wrote.

Underscoring the below: Though Roberts did his best to write a stirring patriotic majority opinion, the fact that we're now one vote in SCOTUS and one vote in Congress away from losing birthright citizenship is absolutely going to be the lasting political takeaway from this ruling.

5-4 for what it explicitly says in the constitution is incredible. They were this close to undoing the civil war entirely. bsky.app/profile/mjsd...

The thing you need to understand is that there are 2 (TWO) different method for amending the constitution 1) The process laid out in the constititon itself (conventions, or 2/3's of both houses followed by 3/4 of states ratifying) OR 2) find five votes on the Supreme Court.

constitutional birthright citizenship survives by 1 vote. and to think people were worried about this beautiful institution.