Make “Liberals” Liberal Again

Law student. Master of Education (apparently). Viewpoint diversity matters. Academic freedom. Anonymous by necessity. subjective/objective/possessive

[Hunter Ash @ArtemisConsort]

If you want to be a serious person, you have to believe it’s possible to spend too much money on good-coded things. It’s possible to spend too much on public schools. It’s possible to spend too much on healthcare. It’s possible to spend too much on food for the poor.

[FIRE @TheFIREorg]

LAWSUIT: We’re suing DHS after agents tracked down a Rochester, NY, man for sending a critical email to ICE’s director.

This is America at 250. Dispatching federal agents to your doorstep because you criticized a public official is an insult to the First Amendment.

[Robby Soave @robbysoave]

I admit I do feel like this whole Graham Platner situation is a bit similar to what I said about Biden when people wanted to ditch him.

He should have never been the candidate. But they picked him. The process played out. It's done. Let it go to the general election voters!

[Jesse Singal @jessesingal]

Procedurally, what happens if Platner does drop out? Hopefully for the Dem there's enough time to insert some other, much stronger candidate, like Kamala Harris perhaps

[Matt Taibbi @mtaibbi]

Again, compelled speech of any sort sucks, Rs shouldn’t be for this

[Bethany S. Mandel @bethanyshondark]

May I humbly suggest that those who are obsessed with Jews and tattoo Nazi emblems on their bodies should be considered problematic enough to bar them from higher office?

You don’t have to wait for more to come out. You should just assume it will.

Because bad people are bad.

[FIRE @TheFIREorg]

Florida International University is forcing students to record university-approved “reflection” videos as part of their punishment for a silent anti-ICE protest — a totalitarian twist to an already unjustifiable disciplinary process.

FIU disciplined seven students for a March 13 demonstration during a campus “fireside chat,” in which students quietly revealed “ICE OFF FIU” shirts and then left. By the university’s own account, the protest neither disrupted the event nor drew complaints.

Yet students have received conduct charges, written reprimands, and are now being required to submit recorded “reflection” videos explaining their alleged policy violations and how they will comply with the university’s expressive activity rules — the same rules we’ve urged the university to revise. Nor will a simple apology suffice: the videos must be “original” and “thoughtful,” and officials may reject them and require students to re-record if they are not satisfied. Students say the university has also indicated that noncompliance could affect their ability to receive their diplomas.

We have already warned FIU that it is unlawfully applying an overbroad policy to non-disruptive, protected expression. FIU’s response was to add compelled speech to the punishment.

A public university cannot punish students for a silent protest that, by its own account, disrupted no one, and then force them to record university-approved statements to stay in good standing. FIU must drop the charges, rescind the compelled “reflection” video requirement, and stop trying to turn protected expression into state-scripted obedience.

[Natalie Wynn @ContraPoints]

Well. It has turned out to be embarrassing.

[Noam Blum @neontaster]

“Aw man, I covered up my Totenkopf for nothing!”

[Make “Liberals” Liberal Again @EdInDissent]

The problem with this is that a bad call has a huge multigame impact. The reason a referee needs final authority in game is that the game would like 3 days if every call had to be adjudicated thoroughly. But after the game, there is time to do a more comprehensive review. It shouldn’t reverse the game call, but it can determine the penalty. Have clear, and harsh, guidelines as a deterrent. Intentional harm carries a tournament suspension, reckless multigame, etc. it may be less deterrent than the current system, but the current system is obviously unbalanced. It’s also a rough sport and these are elite athletes. Injuries will happen, some of the serious. It’s the nature of the game and FIFA should allow for some leeway to properly assess what happened.

[Make “Liberals” Liberal Again @EdInDissent]

I don’t know enough about FIFA bylaws to either agree or rebut their statement, but I don’t think this is very well argued on its own terms. They address the ways in which an automatic suspension happens, but they don’t explain why Article 27 wouldn’t apply. Is their contention that there is a difference between an automatic disciplinary action and one imposed and/or in addition to the automatic? That’s the implication but it’s not immediately apparent unless there is some clear rule that distinguishes between automatic and imposed disciplinary actions where automatic is unreviewable and “imposed” is one as a result of discretionary actions after the game, I don’t see an explanation why Article 27 wouldn’t apply.

[Jesse Singal @jessesingal]

The question of which arguments took root within trans activism, how they quickly became unquestionable within liberal settings, and how profoundly they failed at every level *outside* of liberal settings... it seems important! Haven't seen anything quite like it.

[Billy Binion @billybinion]

The silliest objection to birthright citizenship is that “many other countries don’t have it.” OK? America is better. I thought the right agreed with that. We have it because the U.S. is exceptional. Next!

[Noam Blum @neontaster]

The absurdity of members of congress lobbying to pack the supreme court so it decides in their favor in cases like this instead of rewriting the laws in question - the literal reason they exist! - cannot be overstated.

[Sarah Isgur @whignewtons]

Once again, nearly all of these SCOTUS decisions can be changed by Congress: late arriving mail ballots, partisan gerrymandering, student loan debt forgiveness, asylum at the southern border, TPS designations, tariffs…

If you don’t like the decision: LOBBY CONGRESS!

[Make “Liberals” Liberal Again @EdInDissent]

Yes, that is the biggest problem with the "history and tradition" analysis. I read J. Alito as arguing (basically) what I wrote, but that's a fairly intuitive one since 14A was explicitly related to eliminating the analogized statutes. And, I generally agree with J. Jackson that how to do the analysis is woefully unclear and manipulable. I just don't think the Black Codes analogy in this case actually illustrates the problem very well.

[Make “Liberals” Liberal Again @EdInDissent]

@whignewtons He's a moron, but he's not a member of congress yet. Let's not rush that eventuality for everyone's sake...

[Make “Liberals” Liberal Again @EdInDissent]

While I agree mostly that he was wrong in Rahimi, this is where your argument gets troubling and where he has a narrow point. If it is a right, it cannot matter how despicable the individual is. J Thomas is right insofar as we should be careful about limiting rights no matter the “value” of the person being deprived of a right and that we should be sure that stripping them of that right goes through reasonable due process. An unadjudicated accusation is troublingly shaky ground for stripping rights away, but I think that’s also distorting what actually happened/happens. Either way, the caution is important and “but these people are terrible people” is not a good enough reason to start letting the gov’t take rights away.