rayckeith

rayckeith, 4 days ago

"Comer has cited the hemp program as a crowning achievement, lauding the project when he tried to recreate its success in the first bill he sponsored in Congress, the failed “Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2017.” However, the Chinese hemp imports—potentially mislabeled “as a decoy” for customs inspection and eventually found to contain quantities of THC nearly ten times the legal limit—were never made public."

rayckeith, 4 days ago

@foone @NireBryce "nonflammable" seems wrong. A chemistry page says it burns with a "beautiful blue flame".

rayckeith, 4 days ago

@nerb @Savvyhomestead

The reason Flynn was suspected of being Q is because QAnon follows the destabilization gamebook he gave speeches about a while back.

rayckeith, 4 days ago

@tankgrrl I think there was a callback to that in something I saw this year.

rayckeith, 4 days ago

"Canadian polling firm Leger, Trump does not command the full support of his base and 33 percent of this demographic would have preferred another politician. Meanwhile, this proportion is higher (47 percent) among Republican voters aged 18-34 years old.

The survey was conducted between May 24-May 26. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.09 percent."

rayckeith, 5 days ago

"The Second Amendment cases since District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, in which the Court first recognized an individual right to bear arms, and of course cases like Dobbs in 2022, in which the Court abolished the right to reproductive freedom, demonstrate how originalism is now being deployed as a weapon that serves to vastly expand the privileges of some groups (white men, specifically, and those who share specific reactionary sensibilities) while dramatically curtailing the fundamental rights of others. Can you talk a little bit about that trajectory: from a more defensive tool designed to function as a bulwark against the extension of rights to a sledgehammer working to dismantle existing rights and safeguards – if that is indeed a plausible way to describe what has happened?"

rayckeith, 5 days ago

"George W. Bush initially nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court but then withdrew her nomination, in part because conservatives were like, no we need someone more hardcore. So, then he nominated Samuel Alito. Republican elected officials also engaged in a lot of political hardball, including, of course, keeping a Supreme Court seat open for over a year when a Democrat was in office, and then doing a speedrun confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett even though voting had already begun in the election that Trump would go on to lose. So, I think they were patient while they were building power, and then once they had amassed enough power, they felt no need to be patient."

rayckeith, 5 days ago

"one of the biases built in to originalism. It sets as its standard for legitimacy a time when only wealthy white male property-owners got to count as “real” Americans with a political voice worth respecting. This also reminds me of the Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP opinion that came down on May 23 – the case where the Court basically approved racial gerrymandering and also kind of finger-wagged about gerrymandering being called racist. It prioritizes this feeling of aggrieved whiteness over actual harm to people of color, and I think it was Sotomayor’s dissent that said something to the effect of, y’all are literally making the arguments that the opponents of Reconstruction did right now."

rayckeith, 5 days ago

"think this is another area where originalism, authoritarianism, and other forms of extremism like white supremacy are really connected. Because the constitutional vision Thomas and Alito and company are advocating for is one where the government basically has neither the obligation nor the authority to address actual societal harms. And it leaves people in a very “might makes right” kind of world, that permits all kinds of domination and subordination. Like the kind of reasoning in Plessy v. Ferguson, where the Court is like, “we’re not saying segregated train cars are good, we’re just saying it’s not our business, you all can do as you please and sort that stuff out amongst yourselves”"

rayckeith, 5 days ago

"Why have academics, journalists, and justices who are not part of the reactionary project walked so willingly into this trap? Why has the Right been so successful at implementing it?

MD: I think part of it is, as you mentioned, lawyers thinking that these are now the rules of the game and so this is how you have to play if you want to be taken seriously. There’s also a misplaced desire to beat conservatives at their own game. Recognizing how shoddy originalists’ use of history is, some liberals feel the urge to say “well, actually” and hit them with some real history. But this concedes the premise that history is the correct standard, and presupposes that originalists actually care about history and would be persuaded by different historical evidence…"

rayckeith, 5 days ago

"Another contributing factor is institutional and financial support of conservatives in law schools. The Intercept published an article a few days ago documenting how Leonard Leo has donated tens of millions of dollars to law schools in recent years to create academic centers that further the conservative legal movement’s goals and legitimize the scholarship that they put out."

rayckeith, 5 days ago

"timidity that often exists on the Left. The Right simply declared, baselessly, that originalism was the one legitimate way to approach law. Liberals don’t make those kinds of claims; sometimes they even act as if they need to apologize for the way they do law, as if it isn't equally or more valid. I think the Left should just own it and say full-throatedly that originalism is wrong and another interpretive method is correct."

rayckeith, 5 days ago

"the living Constitution idea. For folks who may be unfamiliar with the concept, living constitutionalism claims that the Constitution’s meaning does and should change. I think that’s correct, but it doesn’t actually tell us anything about how interpretation should change. And I wanted to provide an answer to that question. Inclusive constitutionalism argues that the Constitution should be interpreted in furtherance of inclusive democracy.

We talked a bit earlier about the Reconstruction Amendments and how they transformed the whole Constitution. Yet the Court’s jurisprudence has basically never taken that transformation seriously."

rayckeith, 5 days ago

"Inclusive constitutionalism means that we should interpret the Constitution with the egalitarian and anti-subordination goals of the Reconstruction Amendments in mind. If we were actually serious about ensuring people could live with equal dignity, for example, we might understand the Fourteenth Amendment to include an affirmative right to education and housing. The whole point of the Constitution, as amended, is to facilitate the creation of a functioning, multiracial, inclusive democracy, and I think it’s high time we act like it."

rayckeith, 5 days ago

"you are very clear that all those who prefer multiracial, pluralistic democracy should not just sit around and wait – there are things that we can do right now. You demand more from the liberal justices on the Court, from judges around the country, and you also tie your vision into a broader story of small-d democratic mobilization and resistance. Could you outline what you have in mind?

MD: I would love to see mass movements articulating a progressive vision of what the Constitution means and acting on it, without regard for what the Court says. That could include things like jurors refusing to convict people criminalized under anti-abortion laws because they believe abortion is a constitutional right."

rayckeith, 5 days ago

"a common thread among past movements that successfully changed the Constitution’s meaning is a refusal to treat the Court as having the final word on the law, and creating opportunities to practically implement their view instead."