Guy

205 posts

Guy banner
Guy

Guy

@TheGlibReaper

Just a guy on the Internet.

The Internet เข้าร่วม Ocak 2025
23 กำลังติดตาม4 ผู้ติดตาม
Guy
Guy@TheGlibReaper·
@caryatis @waxaxe1 @JHWeissmann Keep it up and see how much longer bikes are allowed on sidewalks. Seems like they shouldn’t be there if this is the attitude.
English
0
0
1
84
Kayla
Kayla@caryatis·
@waxaxe1 @JHWeissmann Nah. Bikes are allowed on the sidewalk in many places, and you’re only required to stop if it’s safe
English
8
0
0
1.2K
Guy
Guy@TheGlibReaper·
@tonyannett Has anyone ever written up their version of what the charges should have been and against whom? It would be interesting to compare.
English
0
0
1
28
Tony Annett
Tony Annett@tonyannett·
Over a thousand financiers went to jail for the savings and loan crisis. Not a single one went to jail for the global financial crisis. This was a deliberate choice.
English
1
10
51
1.6K
Guy
Guy@TheGlibReaper·
@ehaspel There are a good number of well off people who have nannies. Is there a reason they seem to think that’s a good strategy for child care for their own kids but you don’t think it’s a good strategy for other people’s kids?
English
0
0
0
10
Elliot Haspel
Elliot Haspel@ehaspel·
Again, I want to carefully split out two points here: I'm not against the idea of expanding guest worker programs. Yglesias' argument there is reasonable -- but then he chooses a terrible use case where the argument fails. I am, in short, against is his devaluing of child care work to something where the goal is basically finding a warm body for "watching kids."
English
2
0
1
1.5K
Elliot Haspel
Elliot Haspel@ehaspel·
This is one of my absolute least favorite @mattyglesias takes: not because I'm notionally against expanding the au pair program, because it shows such a reductive view of what child care is and the role it plays in society. There are two core misunderstandings: (1) Child care is not simply "watching kids" (2) The idea that "the only way" child care can be affordable en masse is through low wages is descriptively wrong.
Elliot Haspel tweet media
English
4
1
9
45.2K
Guy
Guy@TheGlibReaper·
The cherry on top is that to get to the extraordinary result, the CJ invoked the MQD. As we saw this term in Learning Resources, the justices favorable to it cannot even decide among themselves what the doctrine means. But the CPP wasn’t a close case. /fin
English
0
0
0
18
Guy
Guy@TheGlibReaper·
Justice Kagan wrote the dissent for three of his colleagues. She’s a smart cookie. They all are. A case with three justices in dissent cannot merit extraordinary relief. Why even have arguments for any of the 9-0 or 8-1 cases?
English
1
0
0
202
Guy
Guy@TheGlibReaper·
Now, @WilliamBaude and @RichardMRe know more about fedcourts than I do, but I’m not sure their blog post from today is as exculpatory for the Court or as challenging to its critics as they suggest.
Guy tweet media
English
1
0
0
26
RE-OPEN THE SIZZLERS
RE-OPEN THE SIZZLERS@SaladBarFan·
I didn’t even know this was true? This actually significantly changes my perception of the Obama presidency.
RE-OPEN THE SIZZLERS tweet media
tedfrank@tedfrank

Absolutely. Olive branches that were ignored: 1) Not making a stink over the Ginsburg nomination despite a more damning paper trail than Bork. 2) Not making a stink over the Breyer nomination. 3) GW Bush agreeing to nominate a controversial Clinton appellate pick Republicans blocked in his first batch of nominations in 2001. 4) Bipsrtisan agreement to withdraw several Bush nominees instead of ending the filibuster (only for Dems to renege next presidency). 5) Not making a stink over the Sotomayor nomination. 6) Not making a stink over the Kagan nomination. Let’s look at Dem escalations: 1) 1981-84: Even as Mondale was down by double digits in the polls, Dems refused to move on dozens of Reagan nominations just in case. The ABA is used as a partisan tool to smear several conservatives who become brilliant judges. 2) The unprecedented smear campaign to block Bork. 3) The unprecedented defamatory smear campaign to try to block Thomas. 4) Blocking numerous mainstream GHW Bush appellate nominees, including the moderate Roberts. 5) Trying to filibuster Alito (Obama voted for that filibuster). 6) Schumer—in 2007!—announces the Schumer Rule. GW Bush will not be allowed to fill a Supreme Court seat in the last two years of his second term when he doesn’t hold the Senate. 7) Breaking the bipartisan agreement to keep the filibuster for appellate nominees to fill seats Dems filibustered to hold open during Bush. 8) Trying to filibuster Gorsuch, and then slow-walking every nominee. 9) Defaming Kavanaugh with a blatantly false smear campaign. 10) Repeatedly threatening to pack the Court. 11) Slap on the wrist for an attempted assassination of a justice, after an unprecedented leak of a draft opinion, followed by slow-walking the dissent to increase the risk to the justices’ lives. Basic game theory says it’s Democrats’ turn to offer an olive branch if they want to stop the tit-for-tat, but their current m.o. is more escalations.

English
11
21
727
68.9K
Guy
Guy@TheGlibReaper·
@dylanfa @KraftAvi @SaladBarFan @EclecticScribe Why is it so hard to acknowledge the Rs’ role? Such a weird victim mentality that it always has to be the Dems’ fault because of something that may or may not have happened over a decade ago.
English
1
0
1
29
Guy
Guy@TheGlibReaper·
@dylanfa @SaladBarFan @EclecticScribe I mean sure in hindsight it wasn’t a great comment by Schumer in the sense that McConnell used it as cover for the thing the R caucus wanted to do anyway. But Senate precedent doesn’t typically run on things individual senators say. It runs on what the body actually does.
English
0
0
1
53
Guy
Guy@TheGlibReaper·
@willchamberlain He did eventually get to the obvious point that the traveler may be subject to arrest for a crime, though. It’s not a good hypo unless there is no other law than immigration law.
English
0
0
0
220
Guy
Guy@TheGlibReaper·
@teafortillerman @VoxPrudentia The point isn’t the circuit had to use the *reasoning* of Lemon. It’s that only SCOTUS can overturn its prior *holdings*, and the holding of Stone is still on the books. Vertical stare decisis would say the holding is still binding on the circuit.
English
0
0
1
48
Joe Bingham
Joe Bingham@teafortillerman·
@TheGlibReaper @VoxPrudentia When the Supreme Court says "don't use the Lemon test," you don't get to say "actually that doesn't count, you have to use it anyway, because they forgot to attach an appendix of abrogated cases that had applied the now-forbidden test"
English
1
0
0
48
Guy
Guy@TheGlibReaper·
@teafortillerman @VoxPrudentia There is longstanding SCOTUS direction on how to handle these kinds of situations. It’s still the common wisdom, and I’m not aware of new direction from the supremes.
Guy tweet media
English
2
0
1
77
Joe Bingham
Joe Bingham@teafortillerman·
@VoxPrudentia Your position is that abrogation is an illegal concept?
English
2
0
1
360
Guy
Guy@TheGlibReaper·
@GsuGrinding Isn’t that precisely the problem? There’s not much in the indictment.
English
0
0
0
46