Hot Take: The real reason Stephen Breyer won't retire is because only like 15 appellate lawyers really gave a crap about Stephen Breyer thought bubbles until RBG died, but now every mediocre paean to centrism he scribbles out gets reported as breaking news.
His spent most of his career as a *forgettable* justice. When you see those stats that most people can only name one or two SCOTUS justices, he's never been one of them. He was the second (or third) choice for his job, and was picked as a compromise to get an easy confirmation.
But now, suddenly, he "matters." Not in terms of shaping the law, because his POLITICALLY MOTIVATED COLLEAGUES are gonna do what they do. But now people want to interview him and buy his books and tweet out his statements.
And, it's clear, he LOVES IT. He's not Souter (who is still alive by the way), who never wanted this glare. Naw, I bet he wakes up every day and says to himself "It's BREYER TIME." He couldn't be more thrilled that now people are compelled to listen to his milquetoast ideas.
Whatever, I still think he will retire at the end of this term. Because while he's evidently an egomaniac who is critically wrong about where the Court is these days, he's not *stupid.*
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Not for nothing, but the failure of @SenatorTimScott to support ANY MEASURE that would restore voting rights to people of color, rights being taken away by states and courts, really blows up his whole schtick of "it's possible to be a Republicans who cares about racial justice."
I don't think Scott has a greater duty to care about racial or social justice because he's Black. But if you won't even support VOTING RIGHTS for people of color, then he can't PRETEND to care about justice, just from a different, small government perspective.
There are Black Republicans, say @MichaelSteele, who I will fight to death over marginal tax rates on capital earnings, who nonetheless see their way clear to say "Jim Crow was BAD" and reject efforts to go back.
Okay, to recap:
Donald Glover plays Dr. Sam Beckett who leaps within his own lifetime into other people to right the racism of the past. He's guided by a white liberal, Al, played by Martin Freeman, who isn't *totally* sure what racism even is, but totally wants to help!
The problem of course is that when he leaps away he has to assume that the person goes back to just being racist, so he has to "fix" things in such a way that the other people in the racist's life become *better* somehow, or a power structure is broken, or something.
I also watched Karate Kid with my boys for the first time and, boy, is *that* an interesting movie to parent through.
For instance: my 8yo was NOT BUYING Mr. Miyagi's "paint the fence" stuff. Even at the big "reveal" he's like "WHY DIDN'T HE JUST TELL HIM THAT FROM THE START?"
At it's weird because on the one hand, the POINT is to learn to trust your elders even when you can't see the whole path. On the other hand, uncritically trusting authority figures is something we've tried to LEARN OUT of the children.
Also, I found myself very "You should TOTALLY fight to stand up for your friends, even if you could get your ass kicked" while also really wanting to impart "Bruh, "privileged blonde girl" is not the fucking hill to die on"
Last thing (before I put this all in post form). I've basically been arguing that the feds should provide abortion services, preventing Texas bounty hunters from suing them. @TheJusticeDept argues that there are a bunch of feds "abetting" abortions already, who *cannot* be sued.
The result is the same, Texas's law should be stopped because private citizens are not allowed to sue federal officials for doing their federal job.
The DOJ is asking (nicely) the courts to allow it, which should scuttle the whole law.
Except for the fact that SCOTUS is controlled by theocrats, this would work.
This is good. This is actually quite good. It invokes, I think, everything they can under supremacy and federal preemption. And going after it under intergovernmental immunity is also a nice touch.
"19. States also may not seek to directly regulate the performance of the federal government
by regulating its contractors. See Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller, 486 U.S. 174, 181 (1988)"
-- I hadn't thought of this. This is good.
They get around the Texas two-step of relying on private enforcement by saying those private citizens are now acting as state actors.
Which is true. Whether the force birth theocrats on the SCOTUS care is a different question, but this is the right argument.
I feel like Republicans are just throwing minorities and women overboard and every time somebody has an idea on how to stop physically them some Democrat rises up to say "that would make us look bad" or "stopping them would make us just as bad as they are."
OR "If we just keep letting them throw women and minorities overboard, maybe in a year from now we can get a new crew and THEN we can stop them. Unless you're going to be all negative about it."
I don't have a silver bullet to just *end* Republican assaults on vulnerable people. Unlike Gregg Abbott, if I had a plan to eliminate awful people, I'd have told you before now.
What I have are ways to *fight* them, not *stop* them.