From what I recall, it's only going to operate in elections where the states who joined and remain in the compact exceed the 270 electoral votes. One of the problems is states can leave, and can do so unexpectedly.
Very important stuff here. Everybody knows there are donors but this really emphasizes how much goes on under the radar in various house district elections. We know what Trump said everyday; we often don't know how candidates in our own districts are selected and funded.
David Dayen
See recent American Prospect article - young people don't vote (that much).
NY Times? Oh yeah, them, the people who said that Hillary had a 92 percent of winning in 2016. Now, THAT was real news!
Please know / remember that prof Quigley wrote that every us presidential election is determined by those who don't vote.
There are Dems in Utah?
Can't find any around here. NY-17 has june primary
and (per practice) it's secret. Mike Lawler has "working class Republican" ads going. Dems silent - nothing in any media at all about the primary or election, perhaps nobody from cia or private equity wants to run.
@ejfagan.com
Well just saw my very first political ad here in ny-17, run by Mike Lawyer - "working people's Republican". So far Dems look like 2024 - zero publicity, silence; I've seen absolutely nothing in any form of media. For a June primary. In a district they won easily in 2022.
All he's doing is imitating trumps very playbook. On Iraq war authorization he went after Hillary from the left. Isn't Carlson just doing the same thing.
Next up: Liz Cheney joins Smith to discuss whether trump's request for 200 billion more in military spending should be cut back by perhaps one or two billion. Watch as Liz and Adam explain that while they champion a Trillion dollar budget, they sure push back on Trump!
We need our first national holiday commemorating the loss of a war - finally, a loss that Americans can be truly proud of! And it might go international, once Iran's Supreme National Security Council approves it as well!
Huh wha a press conference? Media? What's that?
Look at ny-17 where a Democrat won easily in 2022 and the party now routinely fails to show up. A key primary in June, and you wouldn't know it. Zero publicity, nothing.
Iran's Supreme National Security Council is doing more for us right now.
Might as well just find an open seat and run Marjorie traitor Green as a dem.
Democratic voters want frickin Marjorie Traitor Green at this point, or to simply replace the word "Congress" in our founding document with Iran's Supreme National Security Council, the only current check on the combined powers of the Roberts court and Trump.
Some call for a constitutional amendment and others think it's too risky to have a convention. But maybe we just need a few technical amendments, replacing the word "Congress" and its war / spending powers with "Iran's Supreme National Security Council" which will assume all such powers henceforth.
Kavanaugh asked if Congress could limit it - why? If Congress can, then so can he?
The focus needs to be on Congress not on these silly super-technical historical ruminations by the court and the presidents idiotic mumbling lawyer. Congress has the enforcement power under 14th amendment.
Not having endured too many of these events in their entirety recently, it really seemed like ACB's entire approach to the case, and the arguments, was ensuring nobody but the attorneys could possibly have any clue what she was even talking about. Maybe a state licensing law should be about THAT?
Hilarious, his precious judges he appointed.
A whole hour spent on Indians, and at the end, Amy just had to ask one more question ...... about Indians!
No wonder he had no idea what was going on? Is this Kramer v Kramer? I must be in the wrong court room!
That's right, but railroads weren't in your home, and weren't following you around all day to do surveillance of your facial muscles as well as everything and anything you might say or type to anyone, even in "private." They didn't destroy privacy. When it's "totalitarian" let's call it just that.
Our techno oligarchy has a long-standing business model to "disrupt" democratic society and remove various associated legal / human principles. All of that is old - goes back to the Stanford review. Crypto acceptance not about on "Biden-era regs"; the problem is we still have some fiduciary laws.
When Elon specifically supports afg and then raises his arm in a Nazi salute, he's not channeling anything confederate.
Or .... She could only go on running a DOJ bringing cases that are against its own rules, for so long, and eventually one might need to deal with reality, and the real legal system. Not what MAGA is good at, and she's MAGA.
Right it's the most important point. It's why she was picked in the first place to be chief cult leader protector.
Not sure about the "giving up her integrity" part (and more specifically, "integrity" part) of that.
Civil rights organizations support protecting the law, not overturning it. The radical exercise was for the court to take the case, and to reflect that private one to one therapy sessions involve first amendment considerations that override a states legitimate interests in regulating therapists.
We don't know if it's coming back around. All we know is it's going to a Colorado district court now.
My understanding of the concurrence is it's saying that counseling "the other way" is also viewpoint preference. But Shannon Mintner emphasizes that the law is only, textually, prohibiting pre-determined outcomes and has no text in it that prefers any outcome or supports these justices' concerns.
Yes, so important to point out. The "project" is maybe broader (dating back further) than MAGA.
Mainstream degrades public's understanding of critical points of law. "Conservative" courts (esp Burger) in past had some judicial restraint - let legislatures decide. Can't call these conservatives.
Wikipedia says 30 percent of time laws are upheld when subjected to strict scrutiny. It's interesting that in this case, the law could very well survive strict scrutiny, and it may. But of course it shouldn't have to, it should just be a reasonable relationship test, or some lower standard.
The court can only protect the constitution and laws. Cannot protect children. What they can and should do is allow legislatures to write laws that protect children, but they will not when it offends their religious ideologies, even in a case like this that involves no religious practice.
Thanks... It's so important but across mainstream media, decisions are impossible to understand correctly. Media view is that people can understand the most complex technology but not the concept of strict scrutiny, or whether "speech" is political, or whether it takes place in a "public forum."