Post

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1588495109083254786?s=20

More from @AshaRangappa_

Asha Rangappa

@AshaRangappa_

Aug 31, 2024

https://twitter.com/harris_wins/status/1829294476705382566

Thread. To understand Trump’s psyche and how he manipulates his followers (and the media), let me introduce you to the Karpman Drama Triangle. Google it. Then keep reading. 1/

https://twitter.com/harris_wins/status/1829294476705382566

The Karpman Drama Triangle (hereinafter KDT) was created by psychologies Stephen Karpman in 1968. It posits that all conflicts are an enactment of the triangle, with each player assuming a role in the triangle, and then circling around the triangle and switching roles, depending on how the conflict evolves 2/

I became fascinated with the KPD over a decade ago. It’s been used to understand dynamics in everything from codependency to geopolitics. (It’s worth looking at: Chances are you are on the triangle in some area of your life and can give you a lot of perspective) 3/

Read 7 tweets

Asha Rangappa

@AshaRangappa_

Jul 1, 2024

So basically a President could order Seal Team Six to assassinate his political opponent and it is OK (Court says you can't examine motive when a President is acting under an explicit Constitutional authority, which would include the Commander in Chief clause)

The idea that the motive in taking even an official act cannot be questioned makes the word "faithful" in the Take Care clause ("he shall Take Care that the laws be faithfully executed") meaningless. Generally the Constitution is not read to render any of its words or phrases irrelevant

Even more extraordinary, the Court says you cannot use an official act as evidence (as opposed to charging the act itself as a crime)...makes it unclear how you would prosecute presidential bribery or treason -- both crimes MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION

Read 4 tweets

Asha Rangappa

@AshaRangappa_

Apr 10, 2024

I don’t really expect average people to know or understand the differences between Title I and Section 702 of FISA…but I would think (hope?) a *former president* would? Section 702 literally had nothing to do with surveillance of his campaign. So incompetent.

Also: You cannot claim to be strong against China — or Iran, or Russia, or any other foreign adversary or terrorist group for that matter — and be in favor of “killing” FISA (Title I or Section 702). This post basically says he wants all of these to have free reign against us

If you want a deep dive explainer on Section 702 and why the query “warrant” doesn’t make sense and would basically neutralize the FBI’s use of 702 entirely (making it harder to stop spies, terrorists, and cyberattacks), I wrote this in 2017* justsecurity.org/47428/dont-fal…

Read 5 tweets

Asha Rangappa

@AshaRangappa_

Jan 9, 2024

Interesting that for purpose of presidential immunity, Trump argues that running as a candidate and holding office are one and the same. But when it comes to application Sec. 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Trump wants to split hairs on "running" and "holding" office. No principle

According to Trump's lawyers, the President of the United States could order Seal Team Six to murder his political opponent and he would be immune from prosecution unless he was immediately impeached, convicted, and removed from office first 2/

Apart from this bizarre interpretation (which would obviously let the president off the hook for anything he did in his last days of office), this contradicts Trumps position in impeachment 2.0 that he should not be convicted bc criminal prosecution is the appropriate remedy 3/

Read 11 tweets

Asha Rangappa

@AshaRangappa_

Jun 29, 2023

THREAD. Admissions officer here 🙋🏾‍♀️ IMO Harvard/UNC opinion is much narrower than I expected it to be and impact will be much less than I see a lot of people suggesting -- and possibly give institutions MORE ability to curate classes based on diversity interests 1/

2. The implicit question here and the one the justices disagree on is this: Can race be a proxy for experience? Harvard/UNC/dissent says yes, majority says no, these can be bifurcated: race can't be a proxy, but an individual story of how race has shaped person CAN be considered

3. There are implications here: It means that applicants whose identity is shaped by race will need to articulate that explicitly in order for it to be taken into account. This is an added burden on the applicant. But, most apps include a supplemental diversity essay already

Read 8 tweets

Asha Rangappa

@AshaRangappa_

Jun 8, 2023

@steve_vladeck

Today's SCOTUS opinion in the AL redistricting case illustrates consequences of what @steve_vladeck calls the "shadow docket." Ct upheld lower court, which itself applied clear precedent...but it STAYED the lower court pending decision, allowing illegal map to be used in 2022! 1/

The Court says that lower court "faithfully applied our precedents" and that the state's challenge was trying to "remake Sec. 2 jurisprudence anew"...and yet did not allow the lower court's "faithful" application (upheld by appeals ct with 2 Trump appointees) to take effect 2/

@steve_vladeck

Highly recommend @steve_vladeck's book as it explains how these procedural machinations (which also happened in TX abortion litigation) effectively allows for substantive changes in the law without accountability. Good outcome moving forward, but this is also part of "story" END

Read 4 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Asha Rangappa

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @AshaRangappa_

Asha Rangappa

Asha Rangappa

Asha Rangappa

Asha Rangappa

Asha Rangappa

Asha Rangappa

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!