"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
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:
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?
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."