Regarding the "Abundance" debate, I want you to consider a hypothetical I adapted from a Substack comment.
Imagine if Ukraine military aid had to follow the rules Democrats attach to domestic projects. 1/
So, first of all, no aid can be sent, or the aid can be blocked in court, unless 25% of the arms are purchased from women or minority owned arms suppliers. 2/
Mar 30 • 6 tweets • 1 min read
Just a meta comment on the Vietnam War and my tweets:
The War was folly for the US and France. But many people misinterpret that to mean the Communists were on the right side. In fact South Vietnam, despite its corruption and autocracy had a far more free society than the North.
You wouldn't have minded living in Saigon during the war, except for the effects of the Communist insurgency. Hanoi, in contrast, was an unproductive poor authoritarian hellhole that people desperately wanted to escape.
Mar 20 • 12 tweets • 3 min read
I'm going to do a quick political theory thread about this because it is interesting.
Ever notice how Democrats got creamed in several elections (1972, 1980, 1984, 1988), then stopped getting creamed? It's actually partly the effects of this. And it's fascinating.
Go back to 1972. Why did McGovern lose SOOOO badly, only winning one state? Well, because he lost the white working class-- voters who used to support New Deal Dems and now pulled away and voted for Nixon.
Part of that was Vietnam and the protests. But there was something else.
Mar 16 • 5 tweets • 1 min read
i just listened to a law professor on the usually good Advisory Opinions podcast say that the real answer to the problem of an independent Federal Reserve clashing with unitary executive theories is to ask whether central banking is an appropriate federal power in the first place
I will say-- this isn't representative of most law professors or even most right leaning ones. The majority realize central banking is a necessity and that the country will go to hell if the President can unilaterally control it.
But this belief is out there.
Mar 10 • 21 tweets • 4 min read
I'll do a longer thread on this once briefing happens, but this is actually an impossibly difficult case from a First Amendment perspective.
Here are a couple of tweets sketching out why it is so difficult.
First, what does Colorado's law do? Well, it bans "conversion therapy", and then gives it a quite broad definition, including trying to talk a patient out of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Mar 6 • 16 tweets • 3 min read
I think this piece by Adam Serwer is indicative of how a lot of writers are going to go about opposing Trump's DEI policies, but I think he's ultimately politically clueless about how toxic this issue has become.
theatlantic.com/politics/archi…
Here's the thing. Ever since there has been affirmative action programs, of any sort, defenders of those programs ALWAYS accuse opponents of trying to reinstitute Jim Crow. If you don't favor these programs, you must want all white institutions.
Mar 5 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
I'd make a different point to conservatives. Justice Barrett was confirmable to a seat that had been occupied by Ruth Ginsburg, and conservatives had little margin for error on the pick given the 2020 election was upcoming.
Way too much discourse ignores the Senate in discussions of SCOTUS picks. But if you have little time to work with, you need someone who presents no problems that could even potentially slow her confirmation. You have to keep the Senate majority happy.
Feb 12 • 9 tweets • 2 min read
Even though the theories of how it might happen are kind of esoteric and unthinkable to many people, the exercise of thinking "how would the Supreme Court require the President to follow the law?" in many ways answers the question "why is the US such a strong democracy?".
I've discovered in the last couple of days that a lot of people, left and right, have convinced themselves that our democratic institutions are weak. But in fact, even despite what Musk is doing right now, it's actually very difficult to seize absolute power.
Feb 11 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
I am going to put myself on a big limb here, but there is no chance of the White House successfully refusing to comply with a final order of a court enjoining a DOGE action.
People truly haven't considered all the various weapons judges AND the state have to force compliance.
I have pointed out already that Elon Musk has massive economic interests in cases currently before the federal courts. That is reason enough he would have to obey an order or resign if Trump demanded he not do so. A federal court could default him on those suits.
Feb 9 • 15 tweets • 3 min read
at the request of the excellent @lxeagle17 , here's all the reasons why we will have free and fair elections in 2026 and 2028 and you shouldn't listen to shortsighted smug doomscrollers who say otherwise.
First, January 6, 2021 proves this. Yep that's right. I am literally starting with what seems like the strongest point on the other side.
But while 1/6 was a terrible, shocking event that should never be repeated, it also... didn't come anywhere close to reversing the election.
Feb 3 • 20 tweets • 4 min read
Around 1900, Argentina was something like the third richest country in the world. Anyone who visits Buenos Aires can see this-- there are majestic, still standing buildings from Argentina's golden era. Buildings that used to host some of the world's great corporations.
Nowadays Argentina is 71st richest in the world, with per capita national income of around $12,000 a year.
What happened? Juan Peron happened. Or, to be more specific, Peronism happened. Argentina became obsessed with making everything itself and not trading.
Jan 28 • 10 tweets • 2 min read
Today is the 39th anniversary of the Challenger disaster, and the greatest presidential speech of my lifetime.
Mind you, I wasn't a fan of Reagan's politics. But he understood communication, and it's worth noting why this speech was so good and what other Presidents get so wrong
Here's the video of the speech. Watch it. It's less than 5 minutes long.
Jan 20 • 5 tweets • 2 min read
there's not a good faith dispute that "subject to the jurisdiction" excludes "children of illegal immigrants". Even if you want to argue the other side of the Wong Kim Ark case, the position there was that NO children of immigrants got birthright citizenship. Even legal ones.
this is important because you don't get to make up a constitutional theory that is "exactly what the GOP wants in 2025". If you actually want to argue against birthright citizenship, the available interpretation (which is wrong) would denaturalize a much larger group of Americans
Jan 17 • 22 tweets • 4 min read
One more quick thread on ERA. I might as well set out the reasons why Biden's legal theory so quickly got picked up by @badlegaltakes and is a Con Law nonstarter.
The Constitution, of course, says nothing at all about ratification deadlines for constitutional amendments. 1/
And we had a fairly recent example of what this means. The 27th Amendment, which was part of the original Bill of Rights proposed over 230 years ago, dealt with congressional pay raises and was not ratified until 1992. Because it had no ratification deadline. 2/
Jan 10 • 51 tweets • 9 min read
Someone asked me in one of my Hamas threads "why don't you ever articulate your criticisms of Israel", so let's light this candle. Let's talk about the settlements on the West Bank. They are illegal, and obstacles to peace, and Israel should enforce its laws and stop them. 1/
First of all, what are the settlements? Well, if you go back through history, the 2 state solution has a long pedigree. All the way back to the League of Nations Mandate in the early 20th Century, there were proposals for side-by-side Jewish and Arab states in Palestine. 2/
Jan 5 • 20 tweets • 4 min read
So the NYT has published an excellent story about the victim in the subway burning.
And while the final horrifying end to her life is not predictable, the rest of it, the downfall, sadly, sounds very familiar to me.
Here's the link to the story.
I'm flying back from Scandinavia soon, and I fly a lot, in different classes of service, so it might be done to do a thread on airlines and how you should approach them as a consumer, something I know a fair bit about. So here goes. 1/
You should follow the following rubric:
1. On a short distance trip, pay only for what you need unless you are frequent flyer who can achieve status.
2. On a long distance trip, pay for as much comfort as you can afford.
Those are the general principles. Now, details. 2/
Dec 18, 2024 • 22 tweets • 4 min read
So, with @mattyglesias writing about The Groups (which many people still deny exist), it might be a good time to share my hypothesis as to why the Groups are so bad for Democrats.
It has to do with what donors want. Donors want deliverables. 1/
Think about just donating to a charity that serves starving children in Africa. What sorts of materials will they send you? That's right, pictures of the food deliveries, the kids eating. Maybe even a thank you note from the kids. All to keep you giving money. 2/
Dec 9, 2024 • 33 tweets • 5 min read
Folks, birthright citizenship isn't just some interpretation of a few weirdly phrased passages in the 14th Amendment. We had birthright citizenship BEFORE the 14th Amendment. It's actually one of the oldest and most fundamental principles of American law. 1/
We inherited our citizenship system from the British common law. Like most British colonies, we got our legal system from them. Our Constitution, with references to "common law" (7th Amendment) and "law and equity" (Article III) confirms the British basis of our legal system. 2/
Nov 19, 2024 • 5 tweets • 2 min read
What annoys me about the whole situation with most favored nation status for China is that it was perfectly clear they were Communist authoritarians and were going to be menace to the world and yet everyone pretended they wouldn't be so they could make money.
People act as if we didn't know. We knew! They had just done Tinanamen Square. If their plan was to allow freedom of speech they would have... not massacred people on worldwide television in their Capitol! How could we possibly not know?
Nov 15, 2024 • 9 tweets • 2 min read
I dump on the Ivy League a lot, and I see David Brooks is now joining in, and it might be good to be constructive about solutions to the problem (and it is a problem) that Ivy League sensibilities have too much of a hold on the Democratic Party. I have 2.
theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…
First, just as liberals would be aghast in 2024 to cast a net that didn't include women or people of color or LGBT people when hiring for important positions, you should be aghast to cast a net that only includes super-elite colleges.
