At this point, it is less embarrassing for an adult to believe in Santa Claus than to believe that Trump is an economic populist who is going to turn the GOP into European Red Tories bsky.app/profile/hami... - ThreadSky

lemieuxlgm.bsky.social • 10 hours ago

At this point, it is less embarrassing for an adult to believe in Santa Claus than to believe that Trump is an economic populist who is going to turn the GOP into European Red Tories https://bsky.app/profile/hamiltonnolan.bsky.social/post/3lkon6rct4k2e

Reposted from Hamilton Nolan

WEIRD CROSSOVER PUNDITS: Actually there's an interesting right wing, pro-worker space
TRUMP: fires NLRB commissioner illegally

WEIRD CROSSOVER PUNDITS: Actually there's an interesting right wing, pro-antitrust space
TRUMP: fires FTC commissioners illegally

Shut the fuck up now!

Comments

uxbrad.bsky.social•9 hours ago

You can find Santa Claus in the heart of every adult that gives a gift to a child they don't know, or dresses up in the silly costume to preserve a sense of wonder. That's real and worth believing in.

Trump's "populism" more like flat eartherism.

lemieuxlgm.bsky.social•8 hours ago

Worth noting here that the controlling precedent is a 9-0 opinion whose literal holding is that the president cannot fire a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission without cause
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2025/03/the-antitrust-revolution-president-illegally-attempts-to-fire-the-two-remaining-democratic-appointees-to-the-ftc

paulrosenberg.bsky.social•6 hours ago

Ah, but in 15th Century Scotland...

heffbombs.bsky.social•7 hours ago

Yeah but precedents amirite?

dbean85.bsky.social•7 hours ago

The Gang of Six love a challenge

liblar.bsky.social•6 hours ago

So you’re saying there’s a chance?

dmbergman.bsky.social•7 hours ago

What does controlling precednt mean under this Court?

onionwars.bsky.social•6 hours ago

"Controlling Precedent" means keeping pesky precedent from interfering with day-to-day operations, like putting the dog downstairs when the neighbors come over. 😐

lamarsbar.bsky.social•5 hours ago

HEAR ME OUT ON THIS: We need czars! The 💩 is being flung at us fast and furious! We can’t respond in any real way to everything all at once. We need groups to attack specific issues/crimes. A DOGE czar, a DEI czar, an immigration czar, a Ukraine czar (no offense). You get my meaning?

billypilgrim65.bsky.social•7 hours ago

Ila Wurman is already on the case.

curtismilam.bsky.social•6 hours ago

well then it's certainly good that this SCOTUS holds precedent in such high regard.

wait...

not-that-mike.bsky.social•7 hours ago

Great interview with Schumer! He still seems a little bubblee

leahmathos.bsky.social•7 hours ago

The minority leader doesn’t even have concepts of a plan for when Trump defies the Supreme Court. I’m appalled. Why wait until the car is 2” away from crashing to stop when you can stop it way before then?

bradpatrick.bsky.social•7 hours ago

What’s a little stare decisis amongst fascists?

bluememe.bsky.social•6 hours ago

Sadly, I think the Roberts Court has decided that “controlling precedent” is an oxymoron.

pocketseagull.bsky.social•7 hours ago

Ha! Precedent. That’s cute.

emeraldcity987.bsky.social•5 hours ago

The question is as with all of this who is going to enforce it.

realzealman.bsky.social•7 hours ago

Well, yeah, but we in the LOL YOLO SCROTUS phase of things.

mcdee45.bsky.social•7 hours ago

Chucks gotta go. Thanks Chris Hayes for pushing back

mickpea.bsky.social•7 hours ago

Schumer just cannot seem to understand that Trump will not go by the rules. He will declare that there will not BE a midterm election. Watch him.

ethnierocks.bsky.social•7 hours ago

It won’t matter … 🤷‍♀️

sandlapper.bsky.social•7 hours ago

Honest question. Given the captive state of this court, is it wise to take comfort from a ruling from 1935?

pophouse.bsky.social•7 hours ago

good point, the lochner court was too liberal for them

khburg.bsky.social•6 hours ago

It is not. If you had a case that said Democrats could be deported on the basis of political affiliation alone, this court would likely only rule against it 6-3, maybe 7-2 if you're lucky.

khburg.bsky.social•6 hours ago

Correction, it would be 6-3 if you're lucky.

lemieuxlgm.bsky.social•6 hours ago

Humphrey's Executor was unanimous. What the current Court would do is a separate question

winniethewitch.bsky.social•9 hours ago

Or to trust anything Republicans say, which Schumer apparently does.

smullins3000.bsky.social•9 hours ago

I mean...

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply