Gaston de Foix

the thing is the Warren Court's decisions were also hugely unpopular (especially on church-state and civil rights). They were frequently ignored, and the state of the law was changing so rapidly that even good-faith compliance was difficult. 40 years on, many of those decisions remain on the books and won't be overturned even with the repeated turns to the radical right. Momentary unpopularity doesn't bother the court because the level of ignorance about its work is staggering, let alone which justices are responsible. John Roberts tells the story of gay people coming up to him and thanking him for the decision in Obergefell and him not having the heart to correct them (or the guts, take your pick). If there is a case that I suspect might be as unpopular (and high-profile) as Dobbs, it would be finding a constitutional right to own assault weapons under the 2nd Amendment. Everything else will just fly under the radar. But overturning Dobbs, as we have seen, is a slow-acting poison and it's full effects have not necessarily been felt yet.

Well argued, but the judicial process (rightly) doesn't design policies it simply ensures those policies comply with the constitution. It's not for the Supreme Court to prescribe policy, and we don't want them to walk down that road. They have enough power as it is. It is quite clear that elite colleges are experimenting with a number of policies to ensure the number of black and latino students remains at comparable levels. We'll see how much the decision moves the dial, and how much follow-up litigation ensues as a result. I will say this: the extent to which elite universities and colleges shamelessly fundraise off their students and alumni (including while they are still students!) is a unique feature of US academia. If you are repeatedly asked for money, well you want something in return sooner or later. Abolishing legacies/preferential treatment would lead to a (significant) drop in fundraising. I'm not saying Harvard will go hungry or anything, but unwinding decades of pernicious practices is not straightforward either. A lot of that money is wasted, to be sure, but from my own time at uni in England, it's quite clear that the extraordinary wealth of US universities allows them to buy an insane amount of talent from around the world. Oxbridge will probably not be in the top 20 global universities in 30-40 years time. Indeed, for a number of fields which are truly international in nature, they are already at the edge.

I too would like this to be true, but there seems to be some skepticism about this report. Big if true, obv.

I believe that but is it measuring the marginal billionth dollar or the entirety of their fortune or something in between?

Yeah, it will also depend on the testimony of the ghostwriters and the staff member (what did they see in his hands?). Are they being given limited immunity to testify? But, again, the actus reus was proved many times over by recovery of classified docs from Mar-a-Lago so chasing this particular squirrel up the tree has only so much (legal) significance.

One significant question is whether the prosecutors have evidence that (a) a particular document matching Trump's description was actually taken away by Trump; (b) have actually recovered or located that document. Of course a positive answer to that question would just (further) prove actus reus and the tape is evidence of mens rea. But it would be a lacuna if the document has gone unidentified (less likely) or AWOL (more likely). The thing about Trump is he tries out all these public defenses and then switches based on (negative) feedback. Bravado is the only conceivable defense he could run. Bullshitting Mark Meadow's ghostwriters is not a crime. Lying to Bret Baier is not a crime. Lying to the US public is not a crime. When he is asked the question (or the jurors are asked the question), was he lying then or is he lying now, his lawyer will stand up and say he was lying then.

Inspired by my recent DC outing: The Clash (how a Punk Rock band broke time and space).

Alito is probably writing Groff v DeJoy. I think CT is writing the affirmative action cases. Gorsuch is writing 303 Creative. Chief is writing student loan cases. I expect the conservatives to run the board on all of them.

It's funny, I don't see his wife's business interests as a conflict under the existing rules (which are deeply imperfect, it must be said), but the Intercept piece links to a speech that Alito gave in 2017 to the Claremont Institute (home of Flight 93 MAGAhats and election-deniers) where he comments on a series of cases including the Sackett litigation in 2017. [Edit: I see Fez got there before me]. How was that not grounds for recusal in the 2023 case where he authored the majority opinion? True head-scratcher.

SC is handing down judgments today....

I'm thinking about the effect on a potential juror. The premature disclosure of this tape will remove most of its power to shock when played in a trial. On the other hand, the impressions/groupthink formed as a result of the tape (that Trump was caught red-handed) will also permeate through the lizard brain of our hypothetical Trump-loving juror. So maybe even-stevens?

I first thought it was the world's worst trailer for 2 min Then I thought it was a DC live action-Marvel animated cross-over Then I considered leaving because DC movies are kinda meh...but inertia won out.

I too would like more, but I'll take what is offered first. Let a thousand flowers bloom. We can have a live-action and an animated version of BSC. A series and a movie. A spin-off series featuring the life and career of Nicoma Cosco.

Ended up in the wrong cinema hall due a to a ticket misprint and watched the Flash instead of Spiderman. It was...fine. Kind of paint by the numbers. It did this thing where it tried to pay homage to the whole DC universe movie history of the characters as the multiverse which was kind of, I dunno, twee? Worth asking AMC for new tickets?

This would be a truly desperate ploy, and one that relied on absolute trust between Putin and Prighozin. As far as I know, India is not providing any support for Russia beyond buying oil and continuing economic relations (which is itself disgraceful and a betrayal of its values of ahimsa). I think the coup also stopped because of the threat of aerial bombing and fierce combat to take Moscow.

I think he will have enough dedicated troops around him to make it a (vicious) fight ,and Putin's first priority for a while will be consolidating power and reassuring the Russian public. For sure, he'll have to avoid open windows for the rest of his life and I fully expect his death in mysterious circumstances. But a few years from now. And the money that's been wired by Lushashenko to private accounts in Switzerland/Carribean/Africa etc. must be truly extraordinary. It's not that complicated, folks. By definition, Mercenaries risk their lives for money. Prighozin took an extremely bold gamble and has profited enormously. He claimed to be fighting for Wagner rank and file and he did secure some advantages for them. But he looked out for No.1 as mercenaries do.

I agree, but (again) I assume he had a plan and/or a sufficient off-ramp with guarantees that he walked away. One does not simply walk into Mo(rdor)scow without one.

Money, I assume.

People are claiming that Putin has fled Moscow on a plane with the transponder turned off. Big if true, and worrying re possible use of nukes to stop Wagner.

Yeah, I struggled my way through that series too. Cool concept, but way too windy in execution. I would consider a career as a book editor just so I could publish an abbreviated version of Tad William's novels.

Which one? Dumbledore has a pretty poor track record of spotting what's right under his nose - from Voldemort hanging out on the back of Quirrel's head to Barty Crouch Jr. passing himself off as one of his closest friends for a year. I get that it's necessary for plot purposes so Harry can be the hero, but perhaps Dumbledore could have done something more in the 15-16 year interregnum to prevent Voldemort's second rise and all those pointless deaths?

We had talking heads on CNN speculating about PJ providing leadership. Everyone was talking about it. James Cameron sharing his views would not have affected chances of rescue, but it would have addressed completely imbalanced and off-base public discourse. I knew my Ludditism was going to catch me out here. So in the 2022 incident the transponder was working and the ship knew where they were but they lost comms?

Yes, I agree, he was better positioned than most to know. If he had something before Thursday I would have given great weight to his statement, and he really should have said something if the entire exercise was futile. Governments are driven by public opinion and public opinion was desperate to rescue them because everyone imagined the horror of being trapped at the bottom of the ocean. Anyway, take his statement in the first few minutes on its own terms: he says the only scenario that could account for that would be an implosion because that's the only way they could lose comms. I don't claim to know or understand the technology, but it is public knowledge that the submersible did previously lose comms/contact for a few hours and it didn't implode. One take-away from this submersible accident was that there were many ways for things to have gone wrong: from the absence of a beacon, the prior history of losing contact; to the engineering flaw of repeatedly using carbon fiber modules that weaken through successive trips due to water pressure. The fact the CEO went himself every time was the bullshit that impressed people it was safe so they didn't ask skeptical questions. I can understand professional (or amateur) thrill-seekers who love high-risk adventure sports/exploration. But that 19 year old just went to make his dad happy....

Color me skeptical about James Cameron claiming to know after it becomes public knowledge. This guy also claims he was going to be on the space shuttle Columbia.

Has anyone read these Kickstarter books yet? Reactions?