Mike Chen

Anschluss, but for Taiwan.

I do not sympathize with Chinese AI researchers who face exit bans, just like I don’t sympathize with Iranian nuclear scientists killed in airstrikes.

@Zmwtak @ProfDBernstein Yes. And it would have entranced preferential treatment based on ancestry, making it worse than the current system, which the constitutionality argument can be easily made against.

@ProfDBernstein That would’ve been legislating from the bench.

Justice Powell in Bakke, instead of coming up with the diversity thing which has caused no end of terrible policy, could haved end the affirmative action debate by allowing, not requiring (and prohibiting accreditation agencies from requiring), institutions to have up to a 5% (or some such) quota for African Americans, limited to descendants of American slaves and not immigrants. The rationale would have been the special history of African Americans and the need to help ensure they don't lack representation in major institutions of American society, a compelling government interst. Totally ban the use of race or ethnicity of immigrant groups: no more preferences for Black immigrants, Hispanics, or Asian Americans (in government contracting). Carve out some special rules for the small % of self-identified American Indians who live on reservations. That's it. Historical note: In Bakke itself, most of the quota beneficiaries were Hispanic or Asian, not Black, even though the case was portrayed in the media, and by Justice Marshall in his eloquent dissent, as Black vs. White.

@sot1977 @jimmy_esq @varadmehta Yup.

@jimmy_esq @varadmehta Nobody knows yet. Wait for official word.

What a humiliation. We may as well have put Obama at the negotiating table.

@RepCohen *You* are trashing SCOTUS’s credibility with your demagogic bullshit.

I introduced six Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice John Roberts for compromising the credibility of the Supreme Court. See my release below. cohen.house.gov/media-center/p…

None of this would be happening if Elbridge Colby was still alive. cbsnews.com/news/navy-secr…

Has the orange man passed a single piece of immigration legislation? It’s all executive actions so far.

Settlement in (unusual) acc'd student lawsuit against @VanderbiltU. Court recently had denied univ's MSJ on both breach of contract & selective enforcement/TIX.

@roeiwrites @ShMMor @ilangoldenberg It doesn’t take two brain cells to know that Hamas capabilities must be seriously degraded so that Oct 7 will not happen again. Pursuing a ceasefire before that condition is met is utterly foolish.

It’s notable that you didn’t mention Hamas was open to returning all the hostages in exchange for an end to the war in the timeframe Ilan referenced, that the eventual ceasefire deal looked a lot like the initial offers, and that the spoiler was Netanyahu, meaning the push only needed to be on one side. Just ask @gershonbaskin or listen to his conversation with Radman: open.substack.com/pub/gershonbas…

I spent the first 10 months of the Gaza war at the White House working on the response, then joined the 2024 campaign leading Jewish outreach. I spent nearly every day on the campaign talking to voters about Gaza. I don't have any data, but based on my experience a few thoughts on the autopsy and the role Gaza played in the election: 1. Anyone saying Gaza had NOTHING to do with the outcome is wrong. It clearly hurt enthusiasm and support among parts of the Democratic base. 2. Anyone saying it was THE reason is also wrong. The economy, the shortened campaign, and the inability to compete in many of the low-propensity voter spaces Trump dominated were all critical factors. 3. Most importantly: this was never fundamentally a MESSAGING problem. It was a POLICY problem. There was too much trauma, anger, and grief across different communities for there to be some magic set of words Harris could have used to make it go away. The only thing that might have changed the politics was actually ending the war through a ceasefire. I’ve said elsewhere what I think the administration could have done differently -- taking a harder line with Netanyahu earlier, applying more pressure, and publicly offering Israelis a credible alternative vision while Biden still had significant popularity and leverage in Israel. But that all would have had to happen in late 2023 or early 2024, before Biden became a lame duck. By the summer, it was largely too late. And to be honest, I’m not sure it would have worked. But I do wish we had tried. 4. One thing I do regret from the campaign: not having a Palestinian speaker on stage at the DNC. I wasn’t part of that decision. It was my first week on the campaign. I don’t think it would have changed the election outcome. But I do think it would have been the right thing to do.

Waiting for an explainer by a finance/law person for this.

@BDSixsmith Why aren’t people blaming the lawmakers for giving the discretion to judges in adolescent rape cases? The judge may be shit, but so are the lawmakers who enable such an atrocity.

Infuriating to contrast the eloquent despair of the victim with the grating and unserious informality of the judge ("big trouble" indeed).

Private parties can’t ban guns on their own premise in Florida?

@CatoInstitute @walterolson discrimination law is not unique for the Voting Rights Act — employers can’t discriminate based on national origin in hiring, but discrimination on immigration status is fine, even though immigrates are all from non-US origins.

@CatoInstitute @walterolson The given example of a circumstance that gives “strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred” shows that it would still be very difficult to use partisan gerrymander to conceal racial gerrymander. And requiring a proof of intent to discriminate in anti-

The Supreme Court just made it harder to use race when drawing voting districts. But here’s the catch—partisan gerrymandering is still allowed, and since race and politics often overlap, the result could still sort voters by race in less obvious ways. Read more: ow.ly/c2ES50YSYem

I hope Republicans don’t stop chipping away ABA’s influence because of this.

@wc_shia 我指的是是否有活人献祭的宗教仪式。这事有争议，两边都有动机撒谎，其中一边是撒谎惯犯。

@Mike_chen2 @interjc 應該是真事，當年阿姊鼓這張專輯音響圈很紅的，大家都知道由來是人皮鼓

手欠搜了一下“阿姐鼓”

I was reading Louisiana v. Callais and I don’t get why they didn’t define having “less opportunity than other members of the electorate to … elect representatives of their choice” as having a smaller average success rate of electing representatives of their choice.

@RennersHere @ProfDBernstein yeah. It’s trolling.

@ProfDBernstein That's a satire account, Prof Bernstein.

Larry Bushart spent 37 days in jail for posting a meme on Facebook. I’ve been doing this work for 25 years, and I can honestly say this is the worst First Amendment case I’ve ever seen. Not because Larry threatened anyone. He didn’t. Not because he committed violence. He didn’t. Not because this was a close call. It wasn’t. He posted a political meme — the kind of thing millions of Americans do every day — and local officials decided to treat it like a crime. And because they had badges, prosecutors, jail cells, and the terrifying machinery of the state behind them, they got away with it for 37 days. Larry is a retired police officer and National Guard veteran. The meme he shared quoted Donald Trump’s “we have to get over it” comment after a 2024 Iowa school shooting. Whatever you think of Trump, the meme was plainly political commentary. Perry County officials knew what it referred to. They knew it wasn’t a threat against a Tennessee school. They arrested him anyway. In the middle of the night. They set his bond at $2 million. He lost his job. He missed family milestones. He sat in jail for more than a month before the charges finally collapsed — because, of course, there was no crime here. Today, @theFIREorg secured a measure of justice: Perry County agreed to pay Larry Bushart $835,000 for violating his constitutional rights. This case should scare the hell out of people across the political spectrum. Because if the government can jail you for a meme by pretending not to understand obvious political commentary, your rights are only as secure as the good faith of the most authoritarian official in your town. That is exactly why we have the First Amendment. Not for speech everyone likes. Not for opinions that flatter the powerful. Not for the bland, safe, committee-approved stuff. It exists for moments when fear, outrage, politics, and authority all line up and say: “Surely this is the exception.” No. It isn’t. I’m incredibly proud of @theFIREorg’s legal team. And I’m even prouder of Larry Bushart for refusing to let the government get away with treating his constitutional rights like a suggestion. But despite the correct verdict, I'll probably always get angry every time I think of this case. Let’s make this the last time anyone in America is arrested — let alone thrown in jail — for a meme. Celebrate your independence. Defend your First Amendment. fire.org/news/victory-t…

The editor in chief of Reason wrote this crap, as if libertarians’ reputation can’t get worse.