What I think we’re seeing is the start of a serious messaging pivot on the political right, from “we have to make it harder to vote in order to prevent voter fraud” to “people who disagree with my views don’t deserve the right to vote.” /1 mississippifreepress.org/11009/mississi…
“Many people shouldn’t be allowed to vote” isn’t just the view of Mississippi political leaders. It’s also in the National Review today. I guess they’re admitting voter fraud isn’t really the problem they want to solve. /2
tbf this was already a thing last year—it’s not new. But it’s in the mainstream now. And it’s something to be concerned about. I’m hoping reasonable right-of-center folks who care about democracy will call this out for what it is. /end vanityfair.com/news/2020/04/r…
Also: As @jonathanchait just posted, this isn't new, in an important sense. Jonah Goldberg said this back in 2007. Still, it's notable how this idea is reemerging as an alternative to the false "voter fraud" idea, just as voter suppression is increasing. latimes.com/opinion/opinio…

• • •

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

Keep Current with Sean Hecht

Sean Hecht 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!


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 @seanhecht

25 Mar
Me, reading Chief Justice Roberts's take on national monuments, seemingly ignorant of over 100 years of precedent, and of how the Antiquities Act has been applied all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt's presidency
"Somewhere along the line"
"Somewhere along the line" could've been Cameron v US, 252 U.S. 450 (1920), approving TR's designation of the original Grand Canyon monument in 1908. Or it might have been the designation of the massive (over 1 million acres) Death Valley monument by President Hoover in 1933. 🤔 Excerpt from Statement of CJ Roberts saying "[s]omewherOriginal national monument map of Death ValleyDeath Valley National Monument proclamation (President HooveQuotation from US v Cameron holding that Grand Canyon was a
Read 5 tweets
25 Mar
Anyone who knows anything about the underwriting & actuarial practices of the insurance industry can tell you: this is not even close to how anything works.
Despite this article’s bizarre speculation to the contrary, correlated & highly uncertain high-magnitude loss events are insurers’ nightmare. Not only does it mean they pay more claims, but also tends to make risk less insurable, which is the opposite of what they want.
LOL, “update” to the article @JDVance1 linked backs off from the entire premise of the tweet& article
Read 4 tweets
7 Mar
So tired of these hot, uninformed takes. The bill could have been better, sure. But it will help people who need it, more than any federal law in recent decades, and far, far more than would have happened—or did happen—w/GOP control of the Senate. Thread from WaPo coverage here Image
Look at the numbers. This is serious material relief for people who need it. Image
This isn’t diversity and vibes. It’s over a trillion dollars into the hands of people who are suffering, plus money for state govts. Image
Read 6 tweets
23 Dec 20
Thread: @EPA just released its decision to keep the ambient air quality standard for ozone (smog) at 70 parts per billion. In less technical terms, this means more children will get asthma, more ppl will get sick, more ppl will die, bc the Trump EPA rejects expert conclusions. /1
Today's EPA decision, linked here, doesn't provide this context: Trump EPA mgmt sabotaged the scientific review of the standards by unlawfully blowing up its expert review panel, & improperly failed to provide a scientific foundation for its policy. /2 epa.gov/ground-level-o…
Together w/@41shen, I filed a comment in October on the draft decision on behalf of 40 legal scholars. We took issue w/the gutting of EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) & the shortcutting of science in the development of the standard. /3
Read 13 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

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

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!