Dan McLaughlin Profile picture
Aug 21, 2019 3 tweets 1 min read Read on X
"Professionalizing" ambassadors would mean they no longer work for the president - another chip away at our democracy in favor of the unelected administrative state. But from what I can see, Warren's actual plan is just generalities: medium.com/@teamwarren/re…
In the 19th century, ambassador was a hugely important position, requiring independent judgment to act on the ground (and gather intelligence) far from home. With modern communications, an ambassador's single most important qualification is the confidence of the president.
That's not to say that ignorant donors should be our representatives (there are less intrusive reforms one could pursue), but "professional" ambassadors who aren't on the same page as the POTUS would be worse than no ambassador at all.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dan McLaughlin

Dan McLaughlin Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @baseballcrank

May 27
The question isn't who's mad, George, it's who's wrong. You're wrong. The notion that the Appeal to Heaven flag is a symbol of insurrection against Washington (as opposed to a symbol of insurrection against George III) is a post hoc partisan-hack invention. To compare it to the swastika is shameful minimization of Nazism. See below:
Just consider some of the places this flag flew without controversy before May 22, 2024, when people like @gtconway3d became obligated to pretend, retroactively, that it had for years been EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE HOLOCAUST:
The flag is still flown in annual commemorations of its origin in New Hampshire:
bostonherald.com/2024/05/25/gra…
Read 8 tweets
Apr 25
Thomas: So, this presidential immunity...where does it come from in the Constitution? There he goes again asking about that pesky Constitution.
Thomas asks how you tell what acts are covered; Roberts follows up asking directly about bribery for an official act. Sauer tries to separate the bribe from the official act.
Sauer: you review the indictment after removing the official acts. Roberts: how do you tell a bribe was in exchange for the official act, then?
Read 83 tweets
Apr 24
Kagan & KBJ really trying to keep Idaho's lawyer from answering any of their questions.
Roberts finally asks Idaho's lawyer "could I hear your answer?" as Kagan tries to talk over him again.
Kagan now saying EMTALA allowed "the medical community" to preempt state law.
Read 35 tweets
Dec 1, 2023
We're on. Image
DeSantis leads with California running out of U-hauls for people fleeing the state, and goes hard after Newsom personally.
Newsom: "I'm here to tell the truth about the Biden-Harris record" - backpedaling hard from California.
Read 39 tweets
Nov 11, 2023
Debate at #fedsoc2023 on laws regulating social media platforms. Richard Epstein making the case that "market dominance" of platforms in public speech legitimizes regulation.
Epstein gets a laugh by noting the tendency of platforms like this one to decide that, say, his opinions are more dangerous than pornography. #fedsoc2023
Epstein: I don't trust the government to do many things, but there's no reason it can't manage a public complaint system aimed at ensuring that all information reaches the public. #fedsoc2023
Read 14 tweets
Sep 7, 2023
1. LOL, this is some spin. Disney chose to file these then-much-hyped claims in federal court. Some of us have long warned that they were fatally undermined by the problems identified in the Board's state court suit.

It means the only remaining claim is vs state legislation.
2. The fact that Disney dropped all its claims against executive actions means that its sole remaining claim runs up against formidable 11th Circuit precedent, Ala. Educ. Ass'n v. Bentley (In re Hubbard), 803 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir 2015).
3. Under Hubbard, "when a statute is facially
constitutional, a plaintiff cannot bring a free-speech
challenge by claiming that the lawmakers
who passed it acted with a constitutionally
impermissible purpose."
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(