#Judicial Nominations

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Joan McCarter at Daily Kos:

The Supreme Court should have been center stage in the 2016 election. It wasn’t, but the ensuing havoc that the court—packed with three young justices appointed by Donald Trump—has wreaked on our democracy demands it take center stage in 2024, especially in light of a CNN report published on Wednesday. The report, part of a series on the recent inside workings of the court, focuses on the marginalization of Justice Samuel Alito and the “internal opposition” to his hard-line views this session. “[T]he frustration of the 74-year-old justice has grown increasingly palpable in the courtroom,” CNN writes.

But the article drops this bombshell at the end: “While Alito is still relatively young as far as justices go (most in recent years haven’t left the bench until their 80s), he has reflected in private about retirement.”  If Trump wins this year’s presidential election, Alito may very well step down and go home to fly whatever flags he and his wife want, secure in the knowledge that Trump would install someone just as extreme—and a lot younger—in his seat. That goes for Justice Clarence Thomas as well. At 75, he’s the both the oldest and the most senior member of the court, having been appointed in 1991 by then-President George H.W. Bush. If Trump wins, Thomas may very well decide it’s time to enjoy his $493,700 motorhome, also knowing his seat would go to a like-minded hack. There’s been rampant speculation that he’ll step down if Trump wins.

The Supreme Court is at stake this election, as a Trump win would mean that at least 1 or 2 of Thomas, Alito, and/or Roberts could step down and be replaced by hard-right MAGA judicial activists.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Joe Manchin has a new rule when it comes to President Joe Biden’s judicial picks: If they don’t have Republican backing, he won’t vote for them.

The retiring West Virginia Democrat has quietly voted against several judicial picks this week, making for some close — though still ultimately successful — votes on the Senate floor. Manchin said there's a method to his opposition.

“Just one Republican. That’s all I’m asking for. Give me something bipartisan. This is my own little filibuster. If they can’t get one Republican, I vote for none. I’ve told [Democrats] that. I said, ‘I’m sick and tired of it, I can’t take it anymore,’” Manchin said in an interview Wednesday.

Manchin’s stance makes party-line nominees even trickier as the election nears, requiring total unanimity among the rest of the 51-member caucus unless a nominee has bipartisan support. At the moment, that might be enough to stop the nomination of Adeel Mangi to an appeals court; Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) came out in opposition to his nomination on Tuesday evening and he has no Republican support at the moment.

Bipartisan support for Biden's judicial picks can vary widely: Some get dozens of GOP votes, particularly if they are in red states where home-state senators approved the pick beforehand, while others get a total Republican blockade. And several GOP senators, like Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, are often inclined to cross party lines.

But Manchin said he needs to see more of an effort to get GOP votes.

“If they don’t have a Republican, I’m opposing. That’s my way of saying: 'I’m leaving this place, I’ve tried everything I can. Don’t tell me you can’t get one.' If you’ve got a decent person you can at least get one. Just go ask Lisa, go ask Susan, even Lindsey,” Manchin said. “Lisa and Susan both are not controlled by just voting party line, I know that. But you’ve got to ask them.”

Manchin also said he’s doing a little work on the side to preserve the legislative filibuster, even as its two strongest Democrat-aligned advocates — him and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) head for the exits. He said he’s telling donors to ask candidates “if they will commit to supporting and keeping the filibuster. If they don’t, you ought to think twice about it.”

[thenewdemocratus]

The Daily Beast: Ben Jacobs: Harry Reid Goes Nuclear on Filibusters

The Daily Beast: Congress: Harry Reid Goes Nuclear on Filibusters The New Democrat Just to be perfectly clear, the Senate filibuster on executive and lower judicial nominations, meaning non-Supreme Court appointments to the federal bench have been removed from possible future filibuster challenges. Which means President Barack Obama and any other future president from either party, as long as the…

[comparativelysuperlative]

A bunch of UT Austin pro-Palestine protestors got arrested on sketchy charges like "trespassing." The cops said they were there to arrest people because the governor directed them to watch for "unlawful assembly," and the governor fucking confessed that it was because he thinks their viewpoint was antisemitic.

This should be a slam-dunk case for First Amendment retaliation. It isn't. Thanks to the Supreme Court, you can usually only sue for retaliation if you were definitely 100% innocent. These protestors might or might not have been technically trespassing, and if they were then they're gonna have to jump through some legal hoops with a hostile judge.

This is not an old precedent. 2019. Features special guest star Brett Kavanaugh.

The moral of the story is to vote for Joe Biden. Even if you think he's somehow exactly as pro-genocide as Trump, you probably want judges who protect your right not to get arrested for protesting it.

[chicago-geniza]

Not what's needed rn but at some point will translate into Russian and publish as a blog post the research project from my refugee seminar final about the Soviet Jewry movement & how both Israel and the US made deliberate diplomatic + policy decisions that took advantage of both top-down/legal and lateral, ambient/societal antisemitism in the USSR to shunt the flow of emigration to Israel, exclusively, and entirely to facilitate the Israeli government's demographic program, while denying full citizenship and/or full recognition of Jewishness to those who "repatriated." Moreover there's a whole emigre political nexus that I called "Navalny Zionism" to a friend but it's not really a misnomer, and it's part of why so many Russophone expat Zionist Jews (and frankly, just Russophone expats) use the Caucasus as a rhetorical proxy for Palestine (no I am not ignorant of political Islamist shit, I am talking about, e.g., how many people who purport to oppose "Russian imperialism" suddenly bring up Chechnya as a rebuttal when someone speaks against the occupation, way before the incident in Dagestan, and know little to nothing about the region at all. I'm far from a fucking expert but have at least read some primary sources and talked to people beyond my background)

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

Against all odds, the Democrats have held onto the Senate! My one and only concern at this point is judges. Push em through as fast as vacancies open up, that's all that matters anymore. We've only got 2 years before trump comes back with a vengeance supported by a senate map that's MUCH more favorable for the republicans; I'm talking like 9 blue tossups, maybe 10 or 11 (not that all 11 would definitely flip red, just that it's not outside the realm of possibility; Dems won 60 seats in 2008 afterall)

Maybe someone on SCOTUS will have a stroke and we can narrow their majority from 6-3 to 5-4 before then, but I'm not holding out hope, so lower courts will have to do for now.

Keep em coming, Chuck.

[batboyblog]

Things the Biden-Harris Administration Did This Week #30

August 2-9 2024

The Department of Interior announced the largest investment since 1979 in outdoor recreation and conservation projects. The $325 million will go to support State, territorial, DC, and tribal governments in buying new land for parks and outdoor recreation sites. It also supports expansion and refurbishment of existing sites.

The EPA announced that Birmingham Alabama will get $171 million to update and replace its water system. The city of Birmingham is 70% black and like many black majority cities as struggled with aging water systems and lead pipes causing dangerous drinking water conditions. This investment is part of the Biden-Harris administrations plan to replace all of the nation's lead pipes.

The Department of Energy announced $2.2 billion in investments in the national power grid to help boost resiliency in the face of extreme weather. The projects will add 13 gigawatts of capacity, support 5,000 new jobs and upgrade 1,000 miles of transmission. Major projects will cut power outages in the west, drive down energy prices in New England, add off shore wind, and enable the development of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s wind resources.

The Justice Department won its massive anti-trust case against Google. A federal judge ruled that Google was an illegal monopoly. The DOJ has an ongoing antitrust suit against Apple, while the Federal Trade Commission is suing Facebook and Amazon for their monopolist practices

The US Government announced $3.9 billion in direct aid to Ukraine. The money will help the Government of Ukraine make up for massive budget short falls caused by the war with Russia. It'll help pay the salaries of teachers, emergency workers, and other public employees, as well helping displaced persons, low-income families and people with disabilities.

The Department of Energy announced $190 million to improve air quality and energy upgrades in K-12 schools. The grants to 320 schools across 25 states will impact 123,000 students, 94% of these schools service student bodies where over half the students qualify for free and reduced lunch. In the face of climate change more schools have been forced to close for extreme heat. These grants will help schools with everything from air filtration, to AC, to more robust energy systems, to replacing lighting.

USAID announced $424 million in additional humanitarian aid to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Due to ongoing conflict and food insecurity, 25 million Congolese are in need of humanitarian aid. This year alone the US has sent close to a billion dollars in aid to the DRC, making it the single largest donor to the crisis.

The Senate approved President Biden's appointment of Stacey Neumann of Maine, Meredith Vacca of New York, and Joseph Saporito Jr. of Pennsylvania to life time federal Judgeships. This brings the total of judges appointed by President Biden to 205. President Biden is the first President who's judicial nominations have not been majority white men, Judge Vacca is the first Asian American to serve in her district court. President Biden has also focused on former public defenders, like Judge Saporito, and former labor lawyers like Judge Neumann, as well as civil rights lawyers.

[reportwire]

Nobel season is here: 5 things to know about the prizes

Nobel season is here: 5 things to know about the prizes

COPENHAGEN, Denmark — The beginning of October means Nobel Prize season. Six days, six prizes, new faces from around the globe added to the world’s most elite roster of scientists, writers, economists and human rights leaders. This year’s Nobel season kicks off Monday with the medicine award, followed by daily announcements: physics on Tuesday, chemistry on Wednesday and literature on Thursday.…

[mesetacadre]

There are very few things I find more sinister than liberalism's consistent refusal to acknowledge reality outside of the world of their ideals. We sometimes pass around the more egregious examples of this and ridicule the disconnect, but at its core it's something very unsettling.

To the reality of a normalized systematic violation of people's dignity and life, liberalism's only answer is to close its eyes, recite the 1949 declaration of human rights or whatever other document it finds more suitable, and declares those transgressions to be illegal. Where is the inalienability of the right to shelter or food when struggling workers are evicted and left homeless to die of exposure because the bank or the landlord did not get paid? Where is the equality of every human at birth when more than half of the earth's population was condemned at the moment of their birth to forever toil for a foreign or national capitalist extracting their land's wealth? Where is the right to equality under the law when each and every judicial system so clearly favors those who provide the courtroom's electricity? Where is the right to freedom of expression when the bourgeoisie's media conglomerates slander every organized member of our class and forever maintain the monopoly of debate? Where is the representation in electoral systems without any accountability measures beyond a choice every 4-5 years and which consistently defends the interests of a class foreign to our own?

You see, every single one of these examples is simply a glitch, a fault in the perfect liberal system. And it does not matter how permanent these supposedly incidental flaws are, because the system is supposed to work for everyone. Things really aren't that complicated, you unruly worker, you traitorous agent. Why don't you keep on producing value like a good little laborer and let our analysts and economists tell you how good your life really is?

Liberalism's school of thought requires disdain for the social majority, because it also requires a total indifference to the unrelenting pain and indignity our class suffers, especially in the imperliazed world. The way in which that indifference manifests is vile too. Not only does liberalism cause, protect, and worsen the exploitation on which it stands, it also cries crocodile tears at its own inhumanity. It offers a myriad of solutions, based on its nominal ideas of an incorporeal justice and freedom. But the same hand it offers us is the same hand with which it pushes us down further into the sea of injustice that it created.

And what happens when the subjects become tired and aware of this game? The patina of compassion and justice is scrubbed off, revealing the intricate structure of capital. It will use every resource avaliable to slander, sabotage, mutilate, rape, traumatize, torture, murder every single worker who dares to build a world for themselves. In spite of the sheer brutality deployed every time, sometimes it's not enough and we win. And it makes sure every other worker either forgets it ever happened, or creates an vilified image of it. Afterwards, of course, the mask of normalcy returns.

There is no endgame for liberalism, no ultimate real purpose. The normal affair of things will continue to function as they always have, the same interests will be defended, the same threats and punishments will be levied against the working class, the same things will continue to worsen, and capital will continue to reproduce. No one is less aware of what liberalism defends than liberals themselves. And at the same time, no one else has such a sharp intuition of exactly what they are supposed to defend. No common liberal will ever willingly tell you that they support the violence we suffer constantly, but oh will the hairs at the back of their necks stand up when you ever dare to question their status quo.

[charlesoberonn]

Trump doesn't qualify to run for president in 2024 due to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

I think it'd be hilarious if he won the Republican nomination only to be disqualified from running and not appear on the ballot in any state.

[choerypetal]

Distraction / Coriolanus Snow

Summary : Coriolanus and You are both selected as mentors, and let just say that he whenever you feel a little too 'sociable' he gets distracted and would make sure to who you belong to.

Enjoy! (English isn't my first language, so I apologize for any mistake)

To ascend to the role of mentor demanded a blend of finesse, charisma, and an unblemished demeanor, qualities reserved for the privileged echelons of Panem's chosen. The revelation of one's inclusion wasn't a mere announcement but a unstable pause, a stillness punctuated by the resounding utterance of names until, unmistakably, yours found its place on the coveted list. 

Now, endowed not only with the prestigious title but also the requisite capability, you navigated the ensuing challenges with a sense of latent assurance. Throughout the process, an uncanny awareness gripped you, a conviction that Coriolanus’ watchful gaze bore into your very essence. An enigmatic conflict brewed within him, an unspoken desire for your exclusion even as he showered relentless accolades upon you. 

In the covert depths of nocturnal meetings within his private sanctuary, his expressions wove a tapestry of profound admiration and genuine regard. Strikingly absent was any semblance of feigned surprise at your nomination, suggesting an anticipation of fate's alignment. "Y/N, step forward." Your name resonated with a meticulous pride in the legacy of your family, prompting you to descend gracefully along with your peers. One by one, individuals were chosen to assume the pivotal role of mentor, all for what ultimate purpose? The perilous pursuit of victory in the Hunger Games.

Coriolanus, in stark contrast, observed each nuance of your demeanor. Whether it was your poised rise from the chair, the exuberant cheers of your friends celebrating your selection, or the unmistakable pleasure tinged with a touch of envy directed toward the other male. You consistently confided in Coriolanus about the depth of your friendship with this individual. However, despite your forewarnings and the reassurances delivered in your angelic voice, it appeared that these declarations did little to prevent Coriolanus from appreciating in disgust, the subtlest of gestures exchanged between you and your friend in that crucial moment—a simple yet profound hug.

As the ceremony drew to a close, Coriolanus lingered at the entrance, anticipating your emergence. A fervent desire to claim your attention exclusively simmered within him, yet he judiciously postponed exploring those emotions, allowing you the space to break free from the throng. The spotlight gravitated toward the newly appointed mentors, Coriolanus included, but he deliberately sought the sanctuary of distance and its attendant consequences. 

In the midst of joyous embraces shared between you and your chosen classmate, the vibrant hues of your smiles illuminated the tableau. When your eyes inevitably locked with Coriolanus's, a fleeting yet authentic smile on your lips wove a narrative of a carefully crafted excuse, suggesting an impending meeting with an urgency that, beneath its surface, concealed the true intention of drawing near to Coriolanus himself. "And I pondered, how in the world could I ever be chosen." You remarked with a momentary pause, a self-assured smirk gracing your features as you finally drew close to Snow. To this, Snow responded with a mirrored smirk, acknowledging. "Told you that you'd be selected. Can't say I was mistaken this time."

Flashing a subtle eye roll in response to his confidently asserted demands, you couldn't help but be amused by the way he carried himself. Not to mention, he felt the need to remind you of your privileged status as one of the select few chosen to be a mentor. Although you managed to conceal any traces of pride on your face, there was something intriguing about Coriolanus's sudden actions. The casual brush of his fingers against your waist, coupled with the assertive manner in which he approached you, conveyed a sense of control that he seemed to have gained from observing the ceremony. Despite the unexpected nature of his behavior, you didn't appear irritated; instead, you willingly let him take charge. 

Breaking the silence, you interjected with a pause, shifting your gaze momentarily from Coriolanus to your friend, who had earlier hinted at a noticeable intimidation for Coriolanus. Returning your gaze to Coriolanus, you added. "You know," With a slight emphasis. "If you continue with this overly protective demeanor, you might end up making the poor thing even more uncomfortable." The emphasis on the 'poor thing' became more pronounced as your full attention returned to Coriolanus.

"When do I ever come across as too cocky?" He inquired, arching a brow in a way that seemed designed to make you feel diminutive compared to his self-assured demeanor. As you observed him, you could have sworn his smirk subtly grew in response to the effect he was having on you. Moreover, he didn't shy away from expressing his desire, doing so with a degree of sophistication that bordered on subtle affection. If the dynamics of your relationship were as apparent as he made them seem, you might have suspected he was merely engaging in this for amusement. Consequently, he left you with no choice but to respond to his probing question. "I am genuinely surprised that I can endure such teasing." You replied, somewhat taken aback by the unexpected turn of the conversation.

As the room gradually emptied, you sensed Coriolanus' breath drawing nearer to your skin. His warm presence had a dual effect, both intimidating and strangely comforting, especially when his arm casually encircled your waist, indicating no intention of letting go. His gaze softened as he noticed the subtle glimmer in your eyes in response to his proximity, even though you hadn't consciously tried to make it obvious. "You know, you look oddly beautiful today." He remarked. Stepping back slightly offended from his comment, you decided to play along in this familiar game that invariably concluded with a well-timed kiss between the two of you. “You don’t look bad yourself.” 

In that moment, you experienced the gentle touch of his lips effortlessly gliding across your skin. Starting from your neck, his plush lips skillfully caressed and sucked at your soft flesh, leaving marks that would need to be concealed for the coming week, if not a few months, should he persist. Instead of dissuading him, you found yourself suggesting he continue, and he did. His free hand roamed down your entire body, drawing you closer to him. "You are mine," He asserted relentlessly, repeating the declaration without warning, as his lips now yearned for the connection with yours. "Mine until the end." He proclaimed with a conviction that left no room for doubt. 

"I am yours." Your voice whispered softly, almost like suppressed whimpers escaping your lips as you endeavored to keep any audible sounds at bay. The awareness of being in a public space heightened the need for discretion, as the uncertainty of potential intruders loomed. "Yours until eternity, Coriolanus Snow." You added. His smile widened, and amid the kisses, you felt his teeth gently sinking into your bottom lip, eliciting more of those restrained whimpers and a silent plea for him to continue. "We should be careful not to get caught." You reminded him, although his affections only intensified, fueling a growing desire for more. "Who cares if someone sees us, sweetheart," he dismissed, his words brushing aside any concern for discretion.

"I do." A voice, familiar yet elusive in its identification, caused both of you to freeze in place. Coriolanus' grip on your arm tightened, the intensity more pronounced this time. He refused to release it, his brows furrowing in anger. It was evident that the intrusion had upset him more than either of you could have anticipated.

Volumnia Gaul fixed her gaze on both of you, her eyes piercing and unwavering. A pause lingered, seemingly devoted to contemplating the fate she had in mind for the two of you, not to mention devising a fitting punishment. Her reluctance to do so was palpable, considering your shared reputation as the Academy's top students and mentor. "Dr. Volumnia Gaul..." Coriolanus broke the silence with his response. In his defense, given the way he had left you in a state of supplication and submission, you found yourself rendered in silent, unable to offer any immediate rebuttal. “I can explain.” 

"No need for it." She remarked, despite being well aware of the relationship dynamics between you and Coriolanus. While part of you yearned to inquire about the how of her knowledge, the weight of Gaul's reputation, coupled with her own legacy, left you feeling restless and apprehensive. The fear of inviting punishment held you back from probing further. However, to your surprise, Gaul chose not to impose any retribution. "Just be careful next time, especially you, Snow." She cautioned, emphasizing the importance of discretion in your interactions. 

As her figure faded from view, you raised a skeptical brow in response to her remark, a shared laughter ensuing from the peculiar conclusion it left. "What did she mean by 'be careful'?" An undercurrent of concern swept through you, but Coriolanus reassured you with a gentle caress on your face, assuring you that everything would be okay. "Nothing, I suppose. My distraction just makes me a little too vulnerable at times." He confessed. Observing him closely, you tilted your head with a smirk playing on your lips. "And..." You paused for a moment, carefully choosing your words. "Am I the distraction?"

“You are.” 

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Peter Montgomery at RWW:

The American Family Association’s Center for Judicial Renewal has been urging Republican presidential candidates and senators to adopt its explicit religious test for future Supreme Court justices;  the group is attempting to blackball conservative judges who fail to meet its “biblical worldview” standard. In a fundraising email sent Tuesday, AFA Action CEO Walker Wildmon revealed that the group is also seeking to apply its religious worldview test to judges for the lower courts, which he calls “a crucial, much-needed expansion of CJR’s scope.”

[...] Wildmon’s email also brags about the group’s involvement in Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led project to engineer a far-right takeover of the executive branch if Donald Trump or another Republican is elected president this fall.

In spite of promoting an explicit religious test for federal judges—a clear betrayal of the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution—and supporting Project 2025’s authoritarian plan to undermine checks and balances, Wildmon’s email portrays AFA as a defender of the Constitution against “radical progressives” who he claims are “bent on destroying the rule of law altogether.”

Project 2025 partner and far-right hate group American Family Association’s sister organization Center For Judicial Renewal expands their religious litmus test (conservative evangelical Christians preferred) to lower court nominees.

[tomorrowusa]

Don't risk a rerun of the 2000 election.

In the first presidential election of the 21st century many deluded progressives voted for Green Party candidate Ralph Nader.

Their foolishness gave us eight years of George W. Bush who plagued the country with two recessions (including the Great Recession) and two wars (one totally unnecessary and one which could have been avoided if he heeded an intelligence brief 5 weeks before 9/11).

Oh yeah, Dubya also appointed one conservative and one batshit crazy reactionary to the US Supreme Court. Roberts and Alito are still there.

Paul Waldman of the Washington Post offers some thoughts.

Why leftists should work their hearts out for Biden in 2024

Ask a Democrat with a long memory what the numbers 97,488 and 537 represent, and their face will twist into a grimace. The first is the number of votes Ralph Nader received in Florida in 2000 as the nominee of the Green Party; the second is the margin by which George W. Bush was eventually certified the winner of the state, handing him the White House. Now, with President Biden gearing up for reelection, talk of a spoiler candidate from the left is again in the air. That’s unfortunate, because here’s the truth: The past 2½ years under Biden have been a triumph for progressivism, even if it’s not in most people’s interest to admit it. This was not what most people expected from Biden, who ran as a relative moderate in the 2020 Democratic primary. His nomination was a victory for pragmatism with its eyes directed toward the center. But today, no one can honestly deny that Biden is the most progressive president since at least Lyndon B. Johnson. His judicial appointments are more diverse than those of any of his predecessors. He has directed more resources to combating climate change than any other president. Notwithstanding the opposition from the Supreme Court, his administration has moved aggressively to forgive and restructure student loans.

Three years ago the economy was in horrible shape because of Trump's mishandling of the pandemic. Now unemployment is steadily below 4%, job creation continues to exceed expectations, and wages are rising as unions gain strength. The post-pandemic, post-Afghan War inflation rate has receded to near normal levels; people in the 1970s would have sold their souls for a 3.2% (and dropping) inflation rate. And many of the effects of "Bidenomics" have yet to kick in.

And in a story that is criminally underappreciated, his administration’s policy reaction to the covid-induced recession of 2020 was revolutionary in precisely the ways any good leftist should favor. It embraced massive government intervention to stave off the worst economic impacts, including handing millions of families monthly checks (by expanding the child tax credit), giving all kids in public schools free meals, boosting unemployment insurance and extending health coverage to millions.

It worked. While inflation rose (as it did worldwide), the economy’s recovery has been blisteringly fast. It took more than six years for employment rates to return to what they were before the Great Recession hit in 2008, but we surpassed January 2020 jobs levels by the spring of 2022 — and have kept adding jobs ever since. To the idealistic leftist, that might feel like both old news and a partial victory at best. What about everything supporters of Bernie Sanders have found so thrilling about the Vermont senator’s vision of the future, from universal health care to free college? It’s true Biden was never going to deliver that, but to be honest, neither would Sanders had he been elected president. And that brings me to the heart of how people on the left ought to think about Biden and his reelection.

Biden has gotten things done. The US economy is doing better than those of almost every other advanced industrialized country.

Our rivals China and Russia are both worse off than they were three years ago. And NATO is not just united, it's growing.

Sadly, we still need to deal with a far right MAGA cult at home who would wreck the country just to get its own way.

Biden may be elderly and unexciting, but that is one of the reasons he won in 2020. Many people just wanted an end to the daily drama of Trump's capricious and incompetent rule by tweet. And a good portion of those people live in places that count greatly in elections – suburbs and exurbs.

Superhero films seem to be slipping in popularity. Hopefully that's a sign that voters are less likely to embrace self-appointed political messiahs to save them from themselves.

Good governance is a steady process – not a collection of magic tricks. Experienced and competent individuals who are not too far removed from the lives of the people they represent are the best people to have in government.

Paul Waldman concludes his column speaking from the heart as a liberal...

I’ve been in and around politics for many years, and even among liberals, I’ve almost always been one of the most liberal people in the room. Yet only since Biden’s election have I realized that I will probably never see a president as liberal as I’d like. It’s not an easy idea to make peace with. But it suggests a different way of thinking about elections — as one necessary step in a long, difficult process. The further you are to the left, the more important Biden’s reelection ought to be to you. It might require emotional (and policy) compromise, but for now, it’s also the most important tool you have to achieve progressive ends.

Exactly. Rightwingers take the long view. It took them 49 years but they eventually got Roe v. Wade overturned. To succeed, we need to look upon politics as an extended marathon rather as one short sprint.

Republicans may currently be bickering, but they will most likely unite behind whichever anti-abortion extremist they nominate.

It's necessary to get the word out now that the only way to defeat climate-denying, abortion-restricting, assault weapon-loving, race-baiting, homophobic Republicans is to vote Democratic.

[ms-demeanor]

got a question I was hoping you could answer!

why do all apps have to go through an app store? why doesn't anywhere have their app downloadable from the internet or something?

was wondering this because lots of issues with apps seem to stem from having to comply with app store guidelines and whatnot. So why not avoid that problem and make the app available off the appstore? And if part of it is because they're easier to find in the appstore, why not do both? why not also offer the download on a website or something?

there's gotta be some reason why there's afaik no one who offers a download for their app without the appstore right?

There are absolutely other ways to get apps, and the one that springs immediately to mind is the F-Droid App Repository.

Sideloading is the process of loading an app that doesn't come from your phone's OS-approved app store. It's really easy on Android (basically just a couple of clicks) but requires jailbreaking on an iphone.

The reason more USERS don't sideload apps is risk: app stores put apps through at least nominal security checks to ensure that they aren't hosting malware. If you get an app from the app store that is malware, you can report it and it will get taken down, but nobody is forcing some random developer who developed his own app to remove it from his site if it installs malware on your phone unless you get law enforcement involved.

The reason more developers don't go outside of the app store or don't WANT to go outside of the app store is money. The number of users who are going to sideload apps is *tiny* compared to the number of users who will go through the app store; that makes a HUGE difference in terms of income, so most developers try to keep it app-store friendly. Like, if tumblr were to say "fuck the app store" and just release their own app that you could download from the sidebar a few things would happen:

Downloads would drop to a fraction of their prior numbers instantly

iOS users would largely be locked out of using tumblr unless they fuck with their phones in a way that violates Apple's TOS and could get them booted out of their iOS ecosystem if they piss off the wrong people.

Ad revenue would collapse because not a lot of advertisers want to work with companies that are app-store unfriendly

They'd be kicked off of the main app marketplaces

So most people who develop apps don't want to put the time and effort and money into developing an app that people might not pay for that then also can't carry ads.

Which leads into another issue: the kind of people who generally make and use sideloaded app aren't the kind of people who generally like profit-driven models. Indie apps are often slow to update and have minimal support because you're usually dealing with a tiny team of creators with a userbase of people who can almost certainly name ten flavors of Linux and are thus expected to troubleshoot and solve their own problems.

If this is the kind of thing you want to try, have at it. I'd recommend sticking to apps from the F-Droid Repository linked up above and being judicious about what you install. If you're using apple and would have to jailbreak your phone to get a non-approved app on it, I'd recommend switching to another type of phone.

(For the record, you also aren't limited to android or ios as the operating system of your phone; there are linux-based OSs out there and weird mutations of android and such - I am not really a phone person so I can't tell you much about them, but they are out there!)

[racefortheironthrone]

What differs a Bronze Age Monarchy from a Feudal or Modern State Monarchy? For whatever reson I have always been given the impression that Bronze Age Monarchy is the ancient version of either the former or the later, but that does not sound right.

Yeah, that would be a major misconception.

Bronze Age monarchies:

were far more centralized than medieval monarchies, with large, year-round palace complexes that functioned not just as fortresses but also as judicial centers, religious centers, storehouses, state planning apparati, and so on. To operate all these various functions, they employed a large bureaucracy that had, if not a monopoly, something of an oligopoly, on literacy, numeracy, and higher learning.

were highly involved in planning the economy, from organizing irrigation and other labor-intensive farming practices to keeping detailed records on production and taxation to coordinating the complex network of international trade that regulated the flow of both key commodities like tin but also luxury goods.

had more of a monopoly on military force, especially when it came to elite units like chariots. Training an archer and a driver to work in unison with a team of horses specifically bred to the task and custom chariots was a long and expensive process that only a monarch could provide the necessary surplus food and other resources for.

were not Christian. I can't stress enough how important this was as a structural force - Bronze Age monarchs did not have to deal with a large, European-wide, literate bureaucracy, with immense cultural power, that owned more land than they did. This isn't to say that there was no interaction between the temples and the state - I've talked recently about the tendency of Bronze Age monarchs to either be god-kings or priest-kings - but that the terms of interaction between the two much more heavily favored the state.

By contrast, medieval monarchies - and I'm aware that the term is something of a moving target, because what it meant to be a king in CE 600 is very different from what it means in CE 1100 or CE 1600 - were:

decentralized. They had small, peripatetic courts, and initially almost no bureaucracy. Governing power was much more broadly distributed down to the regional and local level through feudal contracts, and it was a long and very fraught process for the monarchs to gradually wrestle that power back.

much less engaged in the economy. Aside from tariffs and monetary policy, which is important, you don't really see medieval monarchs telling peasants when to plow and which fields (outside of the monarch's own personal fiefs), because that was an interference with the decentralized manorial system. You see fewer and smaller building projects, in no small part because the monarch usually couldn't afford to do them.

had less of a monopoly on violence. While the feudal exchange was supposed to give kings military service in exchange for land, in practice feudal levies could be slow to form, quick to disperse, and very fractious about their terms of service. This meant in practice that the nobility could exercise more hard power than their nominal overlords, which is why noble revolts were a common feature. Similarly, it took a long time for the monarchs to establish the necessary fiscal architecture for assembling professional armies and then eventually turning those professional armies into standing armies and then eventually turning those armies against the nobility - and by that point, we're not really talking about the Medieval period any more.

were Christian. And while there could certainly be exceptions of Emperors who picked Popes (instead of the other way around) or kings who could weirdly judo-flip their piety into Galician-style control of their national church, over time the pendulum definitely swung in favor of the Church having more power than any one monarch. They were wealthy, their wealth tended to grow over time because they were a corporate institution that invested their profits back into the company, they had huge amounts of cultural power, they had huge amounts of political power, and so on.

[contemplatingoutlander]

An Australian lawyer's view of Trump being the front runner for the GOP presidential nomination

As an Australian living in a constitutional democracy and a defence lawyer I’m finding the whole Trump saga extremely disturbing. Disturbing that an individual who has attacked democratic norms and values, sneered at the jurisdiction of the courts and justice system and attempted to destroy any or all of the tenets of democracy, freedom for minorities and common decency is the front runner for the Republican nomination for president and if successful could have all federal convictions and charges brought against him expunged or otherwise dismissed. Had Trump been subject to Australian law he wouldn’t be a contender for any political position, he’d have challenges being appointed a dog catcher because no political party in Australia would have either defended or sanctioned his behaviour and he would have most certainly been expelled from every political party, no matter how conservative or left leaning. The Republican parties blind support of Trump that could land him back in the White House is a real and present danger not just to America but to the free world and risks American alliances carefully developed and nurtured over decades since the Second World War. Careful consideration should be taken when appointing a person to such power over national security, nuclear arms and a judicial system and diplomatic network which he has already demonstrated a willingness to weaponise in his own interest.* --Richard Busuttil, Australia, commenting on a NY Times opinion column

Seen through the eyes of this Australian lawyer, the Republican Party's decision to keep backing the traitorous Trump seems not only incredibly corrupt, but foolhardy and frightening.

Trump's comeback would not be possible if a majority of prominent Republicans had denounced him--and preferably impeached him after his attempted coup.

Clearly, Trump's behavior would not have been tolerated by many people in Australia or by many people in other affluent constitutional democracies. (Even Brazil has moved faster to prosecute Bolsonaro for spreading false information about the Brazilian election system.)

The character of the American people who vote for Trump must also be in question by the people in many constitutional democracies around the world.

If the U.S. reelects Trump, America will no longer be considered a beacon for freedom and democracy, nor the leader (or even a leader) of "the free world."

We as a nation will be in freefall, moving rapidly towards autocracy and neofascism.

And the world outside the U.S. will know it, years before it finally dawns on many Americans that by voting for Trump, they helped to destroy our democratic republic.

______________ *This quote was divided into paragraphs to increase readability.