foragoodworld.bsky.social - Profile | ThreadSky | a Reddit-style client for Bluesky

The key thing missing from this analysis is the bad faith of Trump. If an injunction only applies to a subset of affected parties, an administration acting in good faith would consider pausing the policy for ALL parties. But Trump will not. He will continue the policy knowing it is illegal

submitted 7 hours ago • 8 comments

No, see, I disagree: the judicial system regularly deals with bad-faith parties, and the Constitution is very explicitly designed to cabin tyrannical men who attempt to subvert democracy in bad faith. The problem isn’t the institutions, it’s the cultural refusal to acknowledge what Trump is.

submitted 6 hours ago • 15 comments

This is not only a Republican problem. The vast majority of Democrats do not behave like they are dealing with an autocrat or a political emergency. They continue to robotically execute the motions of normal politics.

submitted 6 hours ago • 5 comments

... www.nytimes.com/2025/06/27/u...

submitted 1 day ago • 97 comments

JUSTICE Ketanji Brown Jackson: "The Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law."

submitted 1 day ago • 23 comments

Republicans are getting what they paid for: a court willing to cede its power to an executive but only if a Republican is in power. But Democrats will retake power, and John Roberts is all but guaranteeing that Trump’s Supreme Court will barely outlast the Trump administration.

submitted 1 day ago • 138 comments

Ron Wyden out here threatening me with a good time doing some constitutional hardball back to these dudes -- will believe it when I see it

submitted 1 day ago • 2 comments

Thinking again about how the media turned Bill Clinton talking to AG Loretta Lynch for 15 minutes into a major scandal for Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election.

submitted 20 hours ago • 31 comments

Meredith has always been a G, but it's still exceptionally weird and very refreshing hearing from a tech exec who can see through all of this AI bullshit for what it is at its foundation: a backdoor surveillance tool.

submitted 18 hours ago • 95 comments

particularly uhhh poignant bio slug here

submitted 1 day ago • 18 comments

This is an early (and I fear ultimately mild) example of what I was getting at here. www.offmessage.net/p/22-thought...

submitted 1 day ago • 4 comments

seen a lot of discourse about this overlooking this point. obviously you have to fund free buses somehow, and it can be a problem getting the appropriation, but it's not crazy and it isn't that expensive

submitted 1 day ago • 19 comments

Whatever the merits, the effect of eliminating all injunctions is to further erode the weak defenses of our constitutional rights and to enhance the already extraordinary power of the government to violate them with impunity. Unprecedented power to the unprecedented president.

submitted 1 day ago • 12 comments

submitted 21 hours ago • 86 comments

the anti zohran mamdani coalition gains yet another close friend and associate of jeffery epstein

submitted 22 hours ago • 377 comments

submitted 22 hours ago • 7 comments

Every sub-index of Bloomberg’s US Economic Surprise Index is negative for the first time since 2019.

submitted 1 day ago • 11 comments

it's important to understand that they want to threaten the very essence of public education. the conservative plan - the plot to enslave america - requires them to destroy public education and replace it with private academies for the rich, religious instruction and prison-like schools for the rest

submitted 1 day ago • 16 comments

They did it.

submitted 1 day ago • 54 comments

Not a fan of the Washington Post at all. If you’re a geek and like metrics, this article is from an economist point of view. stocks.apple.com/A_d5UfwI_RVu...

submitted 1 day ago • 11 comments

something I'm confused about in today's decision. let's say the president makes a knowingly illegal order - has the FBI confiscate all firearms, for instance. can a district only restore the gun rights of PEOPLE WHO BRING SUIT, or PEOPLE WITHIN THE COURT'S DISTRICT ITSELF?

submitted 1 day ago • 13 comments

Yes. And you can appeal it to the Supreme Court but even if you win there it still only applies to you. Anyone who wants relief has to bring suit individually. The ruling ignores the possibility that the executive will rely on this very ruling to knowingly ignore the Constitution.

submitted 1 day ago • 12 comments

a great example of a Dem politician statement that manages to say almost nothing about an ongoing crisis besides giving a pat on the back to the guy being unfairly kicked out the door

submitted 1 day ago • 2 comments

Inexplicably very on sale today, thanks @raygunsite.com.

submitted 1 day ago • 23 comments

observation: the Apple weather app has become dramatically more unreliable over the past couple months, like shit being 180 degrees wrong about conditions 2 hours out. anyone seeing this on that or other apps?

submitted 22 hours ago • 93 comments

no amount of free money is going to get people to have children in a stagnant society of rampant corruption and dwindling opportunity

submitted 1 day ago • 324 comments

“You know what would help a lot? Some elite disapproval—publicly and boldly expressed. While a successful democracy depends on some degree of reasonableness from voters, a successful liberal democracy also depends on responsibility and even courage from elites.” www.thebulwark.com/p/the-public...

submitted 1 day ago • 205 comments

I just can’t get over how broken the federal courts are as a result of today’s ruling. Citizenship depending on which county your in? The president openly ignoring the Constitution, knowing the victims can’t enforce their rights? A million potential federal plaintiffs with trivial claims?

submitted 1 day ago • 14 comments