seems like a reasonable collaboration, where when inferior courts and Congress agree they can check the Supreme Court, but when the Supreme Court and Congress agree, inferior courts ultimately must abide.
You are a lawyer, and I am not! But, with respect to the same Trump v US, i hope inferior judges would refuse to follow that (false, beyond the pale) precedent and so force the Supreme Court to do its own dirty work or else come to its senses. Do you think this kind of pushback shld be impeachable?
i'm grateful Justice Roberts rebuked Trump for his ridiculous call to impeach Judge Boasberg, but I can't endorse as a universal rule that "impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision”. i think Justice Roberts' decision in Trump vs US merits impeachment.
awful, wholly unjustifiable decisions by lower court judges — decisions contrary to the text, history, and practice of the law — perhaps do not demand so severe a remedy, since appellate courts can correct them.
but impeachment is one of the few deterrents that might dissuade Supreme Court justices from constitutionalizing the anti-constitutional (thanks @jamellebouie.net). impeachment if anything is a remedy too hard to exercise, rather than too dangerous to judicial independence.
more cynically one might posit that he's counting on the opposite, so he'd never have to make good. (i don't know that i mean to attribute that much cynicism to him. he's a person i find hard to maintain a settled opinion of.)
whenever we talked about patent reform, ”moderate” center right technoöptomists would accuse us of a holocaust for the cures reducing a financial incentive might foreclose (with no evidence financial rewards are a binding constraint). i wonder, are they crying holocaust now?
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
great question. though we live in astonishing times that it is plausible that they don’t.
it wouldn’t take a military operation. it would take this government asking for them back. a combination of adverse court and public outrage might provoke that. it already provoked Trump to disclaim his own role in the affair.
gutless shrugged.
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
Can we rescue the people we misimprisoned in El Salvador?
if you don’t feed me grapes when i ask for grapes, you are a bad ally. 🍇
what if he doesn’t defy the Supreme Court because this Court defers to him and gives him whatever he wants (perhaps withholding a few tokens for a fig leaf of independence). is our democracy not at risk then?
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
i think an easier case to make is sane elevator standards are European and the US left looks to European social democracy as its north star. we all just want @holz-bau.bsky.social housing.
can’t. it leaves unsightly stains when i do.
i always do.
we really need alternatives to corporate mass media that aren’t corporate social media.
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
📌
i remember when every day had a main character rather than a main catastrophe.
i haven’t read “Abundance” yet, but here’s a bit i wrote when i knew it was coming. drafts.interfluidity.com/2024/09/17/a...
Text: The core of an abundance agenda, I posit, would be to reshape American capitalism so that overcapacity, rather than capacity nearly fully employed, becomes the norm. At desirable overcapacity, the marginal cost of a new unit would sit approximately at the minimum of firms' marginal cost schedule, well below the level where costs meaningfully rise. Firms can't do this on their own. Under capitalism, the means of production are in private hands, but production is always a public-private partnership. That firms use public roads and rely upon public regulation does not render our economy socialist. An abundance economy should rely upon private firms competing aggressively, pursuing pricing power through quality and innovation, rather than by engineering scarcity. But if we want industries to eschew capital discipline, if we want firms to deploy capacity at levels that would undo the pricing power scarce capacity yields, the public sector will have to subsidize capital deployment.
you only press “sleep” when it is time to wake up.
when the executive has discretion over who has “the right to have rights”, then no one has any rights at all.