You’d think an editor would have saved this poor author embarrassment by pointing out that *the Roberts Court have been absolutely gutting the authority of the administrative state.* 1/

nytimes.com/2025/12/03/opinion

Text:

At the same time, new conservative jurisprudence appears poised to enhance the power of the executive branch. A series of cases at the court suggest that the court's conservative majority is prepared to give the executive branch more deference. Progressives have railed against this jurisprudence, but if the long-term effect of these rulings is to give the administrative state more discretion to act with greater alacrity, then progressives, once elected, should be able to use it to much the same effect. Text: At the same time, new conservative jurisprudence appears poised to enhance the power of the executive branch. A series of cases at the court suggest that the court's conservative majority is prepared to give the executive branch more deference. Progressives have railed against this jurisprudence, but if the long-term effect of these rulings is to give the administrative state more discretion to act with greater alacrity, then progressives, once elected, should be able to use it to much the same effect.

They’ve enacted a rotation of power, not just to the executive branch, but within the executive branch, from administrative agencies to the person of the President, their “unified executive” in whom “The executive Power shall be vested” 2/

in reply to self

To say progressives might repurpose this for their own ends (i) ignores the Court’s obvious double standard, it offered Biden no such deference; and (ii) defies the core of the progressive project, which was to build an administrative state somewhat insulated from presidential politics + whim. /fin

in reply to self

getting a lot of calls from “the digital activation department” lately.

@artcollisions ha! literally laugh-out-loud!

there are assholes.

small assholes cause small problems.

big assholes—the more powerful sociopaths—cause big problems, while calling your attention to small assholes, and blaming them for everything.

the buck stops with that guy, but i sure hope it works out for him. really, man.

all claims are “true” modulo punctuation.

@isomorphismes right. we are not debating what we are debating. we are debating more fundamental matters of equality, dignity, and trust, and we are most of us on the same side of those even as we bitterly fight one another.

in reply to @isomorphismes

@isomorphismes i think we have to fix our system so that parties represent and combine us rather than rationally (from the perspective of their competitive game) and destructively (in real life, beyond the games) divide us.

i don’t think we can just opt out. the human is an institutional animal.

in reply to @isomorphismes

@isomorphismes yeah. our divisions are to serve the parties. the parties are not divided in reflection of us.

in reply to @isomorphismes

@isomorphismes there is a lot of establishment orthodoxy (most obviously in economics) that I’m glad to dispute in ways one might describe as anti-elitist. but with the exception of their prematurely closing ranks on COVID origin, I’ve not encountered anything persuasive (to me) that the consensus on vaccine safety and effectiveness is anything but correct, and have encountered lots of anti-vaxx stuff that’s obviously wrong and harmful.(ivermectin isn’t a COVID treatment. they really did check.)

in reply to @isomorphismes

@phillmv it’s a strange paradox, that the illegible is often the most productive but, almost by definition, the least creditable.

a good intuition for less legible “soft information”, and a willingness to act on it, is much of what constitutes good leadership i think.

in reply to @phillmv

This post is harmful content.

“Seeing like a software company” by seangoedecke.com/seeing-like-a

ht

i’m not sure a word better characterizes MAGA than “abdication”.

we are all for abundance, except with respect to the things we ourselves produce, or own.

the math of time is weird, some kind of strange curved manifold or topological curiosity.

it is so much closer now in 2025 to 1863 than it was in 1999.

happy thanksgiving.

@mms it’s old school! back in the day, when i worked on desktop computers on fixed networks with leased connections to the internet, i ran webservers from my working machines. if your main machine is set up in that old-school way, with stable public IP addresses, why not? serving static sites isn’t usually resource intensive. (if you are serving applications, then, well, it would depend.)

Do you think democracy is a good idea? Why or why not? 1/

I ask because pretty much everyone I interact with seems to self-identify as on the side of democracy, but a lot of people express cynicism about the electorate and the public’s capacity to participate in reasoned deliberation. the most straightforward implication would be democracy is a bad idea. 2/

in reply to self

Do you support democracy anyway on purely negative grounds? (i.e. “it’s the worst system except for all the others that have been tried from time to time”) 3/

in reply to self

How do you reconcile the deficiencies of contemporary publics, as you perceive them, with a claim to being a stalwart for democracy? /fin

in reply to self

if you are troubled by vice they've invented a device.

Marjorie Taylor Greene is castigating the “two party toxic political system”.

Is she going to join, in some fashion, team electoral reform?