"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
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
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."
Of course, @JackPosobiec is wrong about the law & the facts. Trump did not declassify the documents while he was president, & could not do so in 2021-22 when he was no longer president. He's on tape acknowledging as much.
@JackPosobiec As I will remind new readers, I called BS extensively on the Manhattan DA indictment. While there are ample reasons to bring skepticism to the boxes indictment, it lays out a very strong case against which Trump's legal defenses are quite flimsy. nationalreview.com/2023/06/how-to…
@JackPosobiec As the old lawyer saying goes, when the facts & the law are both against you, just pound the table and yell louder:
LOL, these guys don't even *have* a comprehensible theory of how to read the Constitution or statutes, but they think that asserting "we're the smart guys, actually" is a substitute for one. Also that nobody will notice them rebranding progressivism as "mainstream."
If you actually practice law, you immediately realize what a vast improvement there was in the intellectual rigor of the federal courts from the 1960s-70s to the era since the mid-1980s. nationalreview.com/corner/origina…
Not a coincidence at all. The logic of the Democrats' approach to voter groups & their resentments hasn't changed a jot. They just substituted different groups with different resentments.
They keep hoping that if they repeat this often enough, I'll get tired of reminding everyone how thoroughly I've debunked it baseballcrank.com/2016/06/02/pol…