From @richqueeraunties.bsky.social (not active) via @olufemiotaiwo.bsky.social on FB, this verbalizes something that has weighed heavily on me lately and does not reduce the problem to a simplistic solution but presents it as work. "You're dead to me" is an important tool but can't be the only one.

Show Post

You’re right, I really hope they just go all in. I need it to be like half Wild at Heart and half Puss in Boots.

Show Post

I think the answer to point 4 is that there is a good chance this Court would declare other reforms to be unconstitutional encroachments on Article III. Court expansion is the only option that immediately puts people on the bench who can vote to uphold the other reforms.

Show Post

FWIW, I refer to this as "closing the hardball gap." It's the idea that asymmetric adherence to norms is itself destablizing, and that norm-breaking can/should be done in democracy's defense. This is a bit dated but it gets at the basic point:

Show Post

In any event, I actually answer your four questions similar to how you do yourself. I just think that the *aggreed upon downsides* are not really downsides, when understood properly. It's not a "so what" answer. It's a "no, actually this might be better" answer.

Show Post