From the DC Circuit Court website, it appears they have an Advisory Committee on Procedures, of which @kelsi-corkran.bsky.social and @elizabethwydra.bsky.social appear to be on Bluesky. Do you have any knowledge of the Court's panel selection procedures that could be made public?

But that would require drastic action very quickly from CA and NY dems, who don't seem up for it yet. Maybe by 2040... (2/2)

I generally agree with this sentiment, but the one "abundance"-coded policy that could actually affect electoral outcomes would be building enough housing in blue states quickly enough to affect the 2030 reapportionment (without necessarily affecting any individual's vote). (1/2)

Or, better yet, pursue a different moral vision of leaders as brawlers who will actually fight the evil rich freaks who are trying to steal this country from the American people. (5/5)

If that's the vision Democrats want for the country, they need to actually argue for it, instead of taking it for granted, and just blandly stating that they're more effective at pursuing goals that we obviously all share (we don't). (4/5)

Political leaders as smart technocrats making dispassionate decisions about what will effectively bring about quantifiable societal benefits is a specific moral vision of just leadership. I'm somewhat amenable to that vision, but it is not universally shared. (3/5)

No one is actually simply casting a vote narrowly based on their rational assessment of what is in their personal material self-interest. Everyone is making moral judgments about what kind of community and society they want to live in, and who should be charged with its leadership roles. (2/5)

Even when someone does vote fairly directly in response to their material circumstances, it is only after interpreting them through a moral lens. The politicians deemed responsible for those circumstances are cast therefore as ones who support/protect/hurt/abandon them and people like them. (1/5)