The Constitution does not say "when in doubt, making it harder to donate to political campaigns is wrong but making it harder to vote is okay."
That principle derives from ideology-filtered interpretation, not a common sense reading of the text of the law.
FTR, gutting campaign finance restrictions was Constitutionally correct—if Congress can't make law restricting political speech, Congress can't restrict dissemination of political speech—and gutting voting rights protections was Constitutionally wrong (power is in Art 1, Sec 4).
Voting Rights provisions weren’t struck down as unconstitutional; they were struck down by SCOTUS majority deciding the measures aren’t needed anymore, even though Congress renewed the VRA in 2006.
“Is this Constitutional law still needed?” is a question for Congress, not courts.
Also FTR, me saying Citizens United was decided correctly does not mean I like the results or the role money plays in American politics. It means I think the court correctly interpreted the First Amendment, which is what they’re supposed to do, independent of what anyone wants.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Nicholas Grossman

Nicholas Grossman 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 @NGrossman81

1 Jul
One of the biggest misconceptions i see today is the idea that tech companies are more powerful than government.
They’re powerful, but it’s not close. Not letting you use a website or sending you targeted ads falls far short of not letting you walk around free or killing you.
If you think tech companies are more powerful than states, go to Hong Kong and tell people watching newspapers forcibly shut down and democracy activists arrested that YouTube demonitizing a channel you like is more repressive.
Actually don’t. That could put your freedom at risk.
Did you see what the US did to Baghdad? Or what Russia did with Crimea?
Yeah… Facebook or Google can’t pull off anything else to that.

Want an objective metric?
The US federal govt’s annual budget is bigger than Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft’s combined market cap.
Read 4 tweets
28 Jun
I'm skeptical you all have watched these movies at least 10 times. 3 or 4, maybe, plus catching parts on cable.
Anyway, the only one I'm certain I've seen at least 10 times (though admittedly without my full attention every time) is Raya and the Last Dragon. And maybe Shawshank.
If we relax it from 10 times, my list of many viewings:
LA Confidential, Wag the Dog, Good Will Hunting, Aladdin, Lion King, original Star Wars trilogy, Raiders and Last Crusade, the Matrix, Clue, Donnie Darko, Holy Grail, Naked Gun, and Supertroopers.
And Rounders. Can't believe I forgot Rounders.
Writing this list, I realize the many viewings thing happened for me mostly:
-kid watching VHS over and over
-high school, during my film nerd peak
-college late night rewatch or me wanting to show a new movie I liked to everyone
Read 6 tweets
23 Jun
Jared Kushner got the US to give advanced weaponry to Middle Eastern autocrats, including some he was trying to get to give him money for his private business, and got something Team Trump could falsely claim constituted Middle East peace. So they accomplished their main goals.
The Abraham Accords aren't bad, they just did little. Took de facto Sunni-Israeli anti-Iran coalition public, greased by US weapons transfers.
But Trumpists had to declare it a Nobel-worthy transformative achievement, and anti-anti-Trump had to denounce anyone who said it wasn't.
This highlights a discourse problem: proponents of something exaggerate the achievement, their opponents exaggerate the downsides, and both insist there are only two possible positions, such that "actually, it's X, which is neither great nor awful" is seen as an enemy by both.
Read 4 tweets
22 Jun
Kyrsten Sinema says Dems should let a GOP minority block popular legislation because if it passes, and the American people don't like it, they'll vote GOP, who will be able to reverse it, and stopping them from hypothetically reversing a policy that never passes takes priority.
On voting rights, Sinema says a majority in Congress must allow simple majorities in red states—in some cases, not real majorities but gerrymandered legislatures—to manipulate elections because otherwise a future Congressional majority might do what those states are already doing
Sinema's claim that the "filibuster compels moderation" is empirically false.
And her examples of bipartisan legislation—e.g. trying to reduce military suicides, boosting manufacturing—are uncontentious, not difficult compromises compelled by the filibuster.
Read 5 tweets
26 May
This is so naive, and, whether deliberately or not, functions as an apology for Jan. 6.
The US couldn't nuke al Qaeda and rightfully didn't try. It doesn't have a capital city; a lot of it is on the internet. And the US surely isn't going to use F-22s against domestic extremists.
Throughout history, revolutionaries that seize the seat of national power (Russian, Iranian, etc.) were a lot weaker than the government. Didn't matter. By replacing leadership, they captured state capabilities.
More importantly for the current situation in the US...
Democratic backsliding in which elected leaders dismantle rule-of-law and checks-and-balances from within (eg Turkey, Hungary, Poland) isn't military. It involves leaders putting their thumb on the scale, tilting the rules in their favor, and holding onto/accumulating power.
Read 6 tweets
26 May
Good thread on comedy and "can't joke about that anymore." Distinction between "shock comics," and "perpetual victims" is a good one.
Maybe a 5th category is comics who effectively push boundaries because stuff that's normal to them wasn't talked about (eg Ali Wong on pregnancy).
Related thought: The culture could use a sketch show that tackles gender identity as well as Chappelle's Show and Key & Peale tackled racial identity.
I fully recognize this wouldn't be easy to do well. (You think what Chappelle and Key & Peale did was easy?)
One reason I like comedy is it changes cultural boundaries.
Classic greats (Bruce, Pryor, Carlin), newer greats (Chappelle, Jeselnik), and I'd add Eddie Izzard on gender identity, Michelle Wolf et. al. on abortion, and others who joke about taboo subjects that shouldn't be taboo.
Read 4 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!