Collin Fredricks

@ClarenceMaximus I guess we will see who's right in a couple months when the decision comes out. I don't think Justice Thomas sees it the way you do. I think he agrees with the government's framing of Dred Scott and offered the question up as a softball. I'll circle back here when it drops!

The problem is their theory of “allegiance” cannot easily be converted into a rule of law that applies to children of slaves but not children of immigrants. They actually do some pretty shoddy work dealing with that issue in their brief. Aside from the opening, they barely mention Dred Scott. That’s the concern.

CT is not the easiest Justice to read at OA, but I think all the people saying he’s siding with the admin are jumping to conclusions based off of pretty much nothing. Sauer’s arguments get dangerously close to something that is completely non-negotiable for Thomas: permitting Dred Scott. That was his opening question to Sauer, and that’s a question that makes sense if he’s leaning against the admin. He likely has doubts that Sauer can make his case while affirming that 14a makes Dred Scott impossible.

@JThomasBurgess @Jam2go And they should have at least had a better fallback than drawing names out of a hat.

@JThomasBurgess @Jam2go It does seem like the concept behind this one was flawed though, from a basic game theory perspective. Benefit of lying (possibly eliminating one person) is way outweighed by risk (putting a target on your back). Plus you really only need to have mutual trust with one person.

In one of the “games,” contestants had to figure out the color dot on the back of their heads. They all just teamed up because there's no incentive to lie. So he just pulled random numbers out of a box to eliminate people. They spent $100 million on this and didn't playtest it

@JThomasBurgess @TaylorLorenz That’s probably true! I don’t doubt the power of “own the libs” to get people revved up — I just think it’s become an end in itself in a way that has made the right lose sight of some more basic values.

@CollinFredricks @TaylorLorenz leftists underestimating how much a contingent of the right hates woke-signaling is why trump won

@JThomasBurgess @TaylorLorenz I guess. Seems like an overcorrection to me. If you think, “yes the word is disrespectful but no need to freak out about it,” then say that! Not a reason to go out of your way to use it. Feels like an outgrowth of “own the libs” worldview that’s lost sight of the bigger picture.

@CollinFredricks @TaylorLorenz you hold the more centrist view of "it's generally not respectful" that is not the view the right is concerned about

@JThomasBurgess That’s so weird. We do Walmart delivery for all our groceries and have always had a great experience. Our apartment complex is a labyrinth and they somehow always get all our stuff to our door.

@JThomasBurgess Hey if they successfully cut spending, increase efficiencies, and cut red tape, I’ll be over the moon! I think their most immediate enemies will be congressional republicans in charge of appropriations.

@CollinFredricks lol the left wishes

@JThomasBurgess S&P 500 up 9% over that time span 🤷‍♂️

as a joke in september i asked chatgpt for a stock rec i'm up 8%

@JThomasBurgess Oh shoot, I didn’t know about the cap. I’ve already used six of mine.

@CollinFredricks I've only used it once (scared to burn through my 30/week) but it thought for 30sec

what's the longest o1 has been thinking for you so far

@ChesterMorton96 @McCormickProf The laws are no longer on the books because they had built-in expiration dates. Before they expired, many ppl were criminally prosecuted and there were no successful 1A challenges. The generation that drafted the 1A apparently didn’t think they were unconstitutional—today we do!

@CollinFredricks @McCormickProf Those laws are widely acknowledged to have been unconstitutional. Why do you think they're no longer on the books?

As direct and explicit an attack on the First Amendment as I've ever heard from a candidate for national office.

@ChesterMorton96 @McCormickProf Just 9 years after the First Amendment was adopted, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which criminalized most criticism of the government. That’s the most glaring example, but Alito collects sources illustrating my more general point about false statements here.

@CollinFredricks @McCormickProf Untrue. The original meaning of the 1A is clearly to limit government from going after speech it doesn't like. That would allow false statements that are not defamatory.

@ChesterMorton96 @McCormickProf But lots of false statements aren’t libel/defamation. If I say, “covid is just as dangerous as the flu,” even though I know it’s not, is that protected by the 1A? Under current doctrine, yes. But most originalists agree it wouldn’t have been under the original meaning of the 1A.

@CollinFredricks @McCormickProf No on is saying defamation and slander are covered.

@CushingAgnes @McCormickProf News flash—courts have to decide whether statements are true all the time. For libel and defamation cases, one of the elements the plaintiff has to prove is that the statement is false. The defendant will argue it was true. And the court decides. Happens in US courts every day.

@CollinFredricks @McCormickProf Yes, I do.Who ever wins the election gets to decide the truth? What is wrong with you?

@McCormickProf Do you consider yourself an originalist? If so, do you think the framers would have considered knowingly false statements to be protected by the First Amendment? (I find the dissents by Alito/Thomas/Scalia in Alvarez to be persuasive.)

Lest anyone be misled, there is no "hate speech" exception to the 1st Amendment's prohibition of laws abridging the freedoms of speech and the press. Nor is there a "misinformation" exception. Anyone who doesn't know that or who fails to acknowledge it can't be trusted with power

@AlexMonahan100 Please fix your ParlayPlay optimizer! Lots of value on there that’s showing up on other optimizers but not on that one. It’s been broken for a while and I’ve flagged to customer support, but they haven’t done anything.

These sportsbooks really hate to see people win 🙄

@JThomasBurgess Tbf, the way it unfolded doesn’t exactly scream “secret plan to replace Biden that’s been in the works for the past year” — more like “oh no this guy is not a viable candidate” leading to scrambling after the debate

NBC, October 2023: "The idea, centered largely on the thought that Biden is too old and not sharp enough mentally, is that there's a secret plan to replace Biden due to his health or other reasons by amorphous illuminati-type forces within the Democratic Party. It is not a mainstream thought within the Republican Party, but it has maintained a persistent foothold among a relevant chunk of the GOP base taking their cues from some party officials who continue to toy with the idea." Politico, February 2024: "All the Biden reporting indicates he is going to run again and it’s impossible to find a single prominent Democrat who, on the record, would prefer otherwise. Yet too many Republicans don’t believe the coverage, don’t see it at all because they live in separate information silos or apparently think the political press is on some vast conspiracy of silence until the hour when, Scooby Doo-style, the mask is pulled off to reveal the new nominee." #agedlikemilk