so much of the conservative legal revolution seems to outright reject the idea that democratic publics legitimately constituted can fix the meaning of the constitution without formal amendment.

the president is not an elected sovereign. he does not speak for the people or embody their will, he merely represents them. if he wants to change the constitution, let him make his case.

the idea that a handful of conservative legal scholars have an understanding that should supersede a settlement affirmed my generations of american is astoundingly arrogant, and the idea that trump — or any president — can unilaterally overturn that settlement is just despotism

Forget about ND/Miami -- the real shit is that ND was AHEAD of Bama before the Iron Bowl. Then, Bama almost lost to a 5-7 Auburn team and then got TRUCKED by UGA (also showing that their best win, against UGA earlier, was a fluke) and they JUMPED us when all we did was pound Stanford in the ground

See also the upper rungs of the legal profession and the tech world. People literally get offended if you suggest that there's a difference between what's good for their career and what's morally permissible, and that sometimes the two are mutually exclusive.

One of my most conservative-coded opinions is that one of the reasons we're in this mess is because of the profound decadence, solipsism, moral rot, and general lack of personal virtue afflicting much of the upper PMC / bourgeoisie.

and judge pan gets at what i was gesturing towards earlier today: that this idea that the purpose of the executive branch is to effectuate the political agenda of the president is extra-constitutional. it has no basis in the text or the history for that matter!

I think the story here is that rising capital costs were first internalized by corporations in the form of margin compression, then by the government in the form of tax cuts, and then by outsourcing to China (the time periods line up), which resulted in a permanent shift lower in worker share.