I read their point as being “because official acts are not defined and they’re the ultimate deciders, the Court can provide or withhold this immunity at will”. Turns out killing Republicans is not an official act and killing Democrats is.

Oh no! A bad precedent. Wouldn’t want to have one of those. Surely precedent will protect us from having reproductive rights stolen, or declaring the president a king, or declaring the regulatory state invalid. The fascists are already on the march and have demonstrated they’re willing to trash precedent without the Democrats making the first move.

But none of that matters. Is this an existential issue or not? If it is, a constitutional crisis is warranted to solve it. You can’t say something is existential and then worry about not doing anything too extreme.

It’s vicious and anti-scientific, but it’s not in the same level of obviously untrue statement as good conspiracy theories. Things that were claimed to be safe turning out to not be safe is something that actually happens. They’re just lying that it’s true of vaccines.

You don’t need them to comply. All they can do is write words. If you tell them they’re making a power grab and you’re not going to just cede power to them, they don’t have anything they can do but write more words.

There’s plenty that can be done about the Court. Just tell them no. They made a massive precedent-defying power grab overruling Chevron. If the climate is an existential problem, a constitutional crisis is warranted.

The judge, who was appointed by Donald Trump, wrote that the pause “is completely without reason or logic and is perhaps the epiphany of ideocracy [sic].”

Truly the person we should listen to when determining national climate policy. Ignore him.

This is what conspiracy theories are supposed be. Absurd insanity. Not “vaccines are bad for you” or “a secret agent with Q clearance wants patriots to overthrow democracy”.

My guess would be they were arranging calls to rally support and force the alternatives to say they’re not interested in replacing him.

Read the dissents. No one who’s deeply involved in politics or law thinks this is a nothingburger.

I don’t know, I’ve never seen it.

I also do not know what motivates him, but when his actions and impacts are indistinguishable from someone actively aiding fascism, I don’t think it’s really important for us to parse that. He’s an educated man with no known mental impairments, regardless of motivations he knows what effect his campaign will likely have.

Old article about West being funded by Harlan Crowe. Whatever he believes, he thinks it’s worth doing something the worst people in our society want in an election that’s between a conservative Democrat and a fascist. He knows he’s not going to advance left wing causes, he could go on Sunday shows for that, and he doesn’t mind advancing fascist causes in exchange for their money. He may just be delusional rather than a deeply indebted sell-out, but if it were the latter his actions wouldn’t look any different.

Truly a Sophie’s Choice for centrists. On the one hand fascism, but on the other what they believe is somewhat inefficient economics and unnecessary social rights. It must be agonizing for them.

Doesn’t the Chevron ruling doom basically any standard originating from the executive? It’s almost impossible to talk about planned regulations after the Supreme Court seized that power.

“What we are learning is that the president’s age was already priced into the decision-making process before the debate, and the debate itself did not cause any substantial reconsideration of the voters’ decision-making process,” Garin said.

So if we replaced him with someone younger then we could reverse that pricing in? I would like that please.

Independent polls before and after the debate showed that large majorities of the country do not think Biden is up for the job or has the mental competence to carry it out.

The debate was supposed to fix that! Status quo was not the needed result!

This whole issue is about replacing the shitty candidate with one that is less shitty because the other guy winning is literal fascism. It shouldn’t be a close race!

But the issue is we’re rarely discussing actual forms of bigotry in the news stories that then feed into these poll numbers. We’re hearing that Joe Biden or the ADL says there’s rampant antisemitism at protests, but then they don’t detail what they’re actually referring to and the college paper actually on the ground interviews some Jewish protesters who are unperturbed by “from the river to the sea”, explain that they were blocking all students regardless of faith or ethnicity, and just find the accusation confusing.

Their comparison point for the poll was 2003, but would you expect a poll held in the aftermath of Tree of Life to be lower or higher than the current time? And what percentage of those poll respondents would say antisemitism is worse on college campuses or conservative Facebook groups? I think we’re getting a true and correct belief (“antisemitism is a problem”), but due to propaganda campaigns for the genocide, not actual increased awareness of bigotry.

If the media is tacking on “antisemitism is rampant” on every news story reporting on anti-Israel protests, but don’t feel it’s necessary when Republicans welcome in proponents of the Great Replacement Theory with open arms, it’s hard to say the effect is actually increasing the awareness of bigotry. FFS, Elise “Great Replacement” Stefanik was the poster child for the Republican antisemitism task force and I only saw it mentioned in the most progressive media. And if the primary effect isn’t raising awareness (one my say making people more “woke”), it’s entirely appropriate to measure the limited or non-existent pro-wokeness impact against the very visible pro-genocide impact.

The one thing we have going for us is that it’ll be a race against mortality to accomplish these things. And I don’t think his failson is likely to be installed as the next Great Leader. Usually the dictators start much younger.

Yeah, but you’ve acknowledged that antisemitism charges in the media are often being used disingenuously to discredit antizionism/support Israel’s genocide. So in some cases it is less worth talking about: when it’s disingenuous and the impact is to support the genocide.

Like do we really think this change in belief is mostly due to people out talking to their Jewish neighbors about rising use of slurs or threats rather than well-publicized accusations from mainstream newspapers and the president of the United States, often with questionable accusers and/or little evidence? Is the most likely outcome for a campaign to highlight antisemitism going to be increased public awareness and intervention, or just to turn public sentiment against antiwar protesters and enable more brutal responses?

They’re only pre-approved for explicit constitutional duties, but they’re presumed immune for all others and their reasoning can’t be questioned. “I believed they were an imminent national security threat and took the hard choice.” It’s like “I feared for my life” for gun nuts, but you can apply it to nearly anything because the president has expansive emergency responsibilities and the only way to prove he wasn’t actually taking an action “officially” would be using his private communications, but any communications with “advisors” are precluded from being used.

And anything that makes it through that gauntlet to the Supreme Court rather than being dismissed earlier will be decided on ideological grounds.