Yeah, all good and valid points. I’m a big fan of Whitmer, but AOC is my favorite on that list to be sure. As much as I love Bernie, he’s too old. I just don’t see it being easier for any of them than it would be for Harris, taking into account the institutional party support she would automatically have if Biden resigned.

I think you’re totally right that Harris would struggle with constant media attention though, so that’s not great. But ugh, I just want this to be done.

I mean, practically speaking, she’s the most realistic option with the way stupid internal party politics work. Again, I don’t like her, and I like the Democratic Party establishment even less, but I like democracy more than I dislike her. Since her name was on the ticket, Joe would have a much easier time transferring his delegates to her at the convention. Many of those delegates are bound by their state law to vote for Biden, btw. If he steps down, they could relatively easily go to Harris instead. Anyone else would require a bloody open convention that I’m not confident the party could survive, let alone win the race after.

I’m open to anything that lets us win, honestly. But we can’t afford to just shut down alternatives because it sounds hard or might not be exactly what we want. Have any suggestions?

Yeah, that’s unfortunately right. So much of the American system is based on norms and ideals that we trusted our leaders to respect. The Supreme Court has seized their authority, and since they refuse to recognize Congressional oversight (the Chief Justice has regularly refused to appear before Congress), there’s very little we can do.

I’m with you, I’m not a fan of Kamala. I think any of your suggestions would be a way better candidate than her if she hadn’t already won on the current administration’s ticket. The fact that Kamala’s name was on the winning ticket is huge. Incumbency is so important, arguably way more important than it should be, but even a few months of being president would give her a huge leg up over any candidates who might look better on paper. It would take a ton of humility on Joe’s part for this to be a viable plan, but I think he’s capable of it.

Nothing about this situation is ideal, so I’m prepared to settle for pretty much anyone other than Trump.

Dear Joe,

You made it. You ran for president for decades, and you finally did it. On top of that, you did the best you could dealing with some genuinely absurd and unprecedented issues, and all told did a completely acceptable if not a pretty good job.

Now, if you actually care about the country you’ve spent your entire life serving, it’s time to resign, let Kamala finish out your term, and give her the opportunity to run the race as an incumbent. There is no shame in recognizing the time has come. Literally everybody gets old, it’s kinda fundamental. To be clear, I don’t like Kamala one bit, I think she’s a problematic candidate with a problematic record, and a terrible communicator. But she’s an intelligent and vital human being with relevant experience. Stress on the vitality, meaning she’s not in her final months of life.

Sorry, but your age really does matter. Frankly, you have one of the only jobs in the world where your age matters so much. Kamala won’t embarrass us nearly as much as you did during the debate. There’s nothing you can say that will convince me that you’ll magically get younger and more vital in the next few months, so again, if you care about this country, you need to step aside immediately, and put all of the party’s establishment support behind Kamala. Anything less is selfish. If Kamala, as an incumbent president, can’t beat Trump—a man who promises to use his new immunity in the worst ways possible—I don’t think you would again either.

Sincerely, An exhausted patriot

There are some good points in this, and the ending is particularly strong, but he shuts down some critical arguments about the ability of government to function, that shouldn’t be overlooked.

Some of the commentary over the weekend talked about the case ending “Chevron deference” and other recent Court actions as reducing the power of executive branch agencies. That’s the wrong way to think about it.

Instead he says the problem is that this stops Congress from functioning. I strongly disagree. Sure, Congress funds the agencies and sets up the broad regulatory framework, but it is almost entirely the executive agencies and their experts who have been entrusted with the latitude to interpret Congress’ often vague and imprecise goals, using science and deep institutional expertise. The end of Chevron deference will go down as the structural change to government that allows it to be fully corrupted and ineffective. When it’s no longer the experts and scientists who get to decide how to deal with incredibly complicated issues, issues that are well beyond the understanding of a few zealots in robes, we no longer have a government based on anything but the whims of those zealots.

Nah unfortunately you’re 100% right, it has never actually been equal in practice. But at least we all could delude ourselves into thinking that we were striving towards that principle. It’s all laid bare now, and it’s fucking ugly. The fact that they’ve been actively working towards these very goals with laser focus, for decades, makes it all the worse.

And who gets to decide if a lower court decision stands? You guessed it, the Supreme Court. This was always going to be their ultimate decision.

Exactly, and that’s how this court is so tricky. By not fully defining what an “official act” is, they’re claiming the power to decide later. Because that very issue will inevitably reach them after some batshit district court ruling. So they ultimately get to decide regardless, and this court regularly makes up ahistorical and completely absurd justifications that don’t pass the smell test, so we’re doomed.

Not “may have,” did. They did legalize any action taken by the person holding the office of the presidency. Trump tried to have his VP killed for fucks sake. That actually happened. It’s no longer the case that everyone in America is equal under the law. The president is now legally allowed to do anything that would get the rest of us thrown in jail. This society isn’t even pretending to be equal anymore. We’re finished.

I’m so fucking tired, and I feel like that was one of the main points of this. Dems are too exhausted and afraid of taking big actions to do anything about this, so like I said, we’re finished.

Yup, this immunity decision and their ruling overturning Chevron deference will fundamentally change how our government functions. If expert agencies are no longer able to rely on their expertise and presidents are officially above the law, then our democracy is over. Whoever holds the office of the presidency is now a de facto king (in the words of Justice Sotomayor). The comparison to the Enabling Act is super useful for people who care at all about history or democracy.

Yeah I hear you, but that door they left open is exactly why it doesn’t matter. By not defining official acts, they essentially gave themselves the authority to make that determination later, which means anything done as president can be considered official, as long as they say so. This was another power grab for them and any republicans who want to use it, but you can be sure the rules would be different for democrats.

In her dissent, Sotomayor made it pretty clear that that doesn’t matter.

“When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution,” Sotomayor wrote. “Orders the Navy’s SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”

“In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law,” the justice added.

It’s a little known fact that Justice Gorsuch’s mother was the EPA Administrator under Reagan, and she resigned after an abysmal record of mismanagement.

He’s clearly got some mommy issues.

I’ll enthusiastically second ProPublica. They’ve been absolutely killing it lately. They’re the gold standard of investigative journalism.

My whole team and I work remotely, so it’s not the exact same situation as you, but I made a concerted effort from day one to set social boundaries with my colleagues. First week on the job my manager found out I’m single and offered to set me up with people. I acted very weird about it, purposefully exaggerating how uncomfortable the offer made me, and she got the hint. We have a very friendly and cordial working relationship, but she no longer pries into my personal life unless I volunteer information. Been happily working under her for four years now.

That work/life separation quickly filtered down to the rest of my colleagues, to the point where now they act a little weird when a company call starts to get personal. Mission accomplished.

I think the key thing is that you’ll never get through to people if they can’t read social cues. Sounds like your workplace cliques are filled with those types of oblivious folks, so you might just need to be completely explicit about keeping things fully professional. I’m lucky that my manager is emotionally intelligent, but that’s pretty rare these days.

Good luck!!

Edit: queues to cues

I totally agree about Greenwald, but he was pushed out/resigned in 2020, he has nothing to do with them anymore. When he co-founded it, he was still a well-respected journalist. He isn’t anymore, but The Intercept still does exceptional journalism. I recommend taking another look.

Yeah I appreciate this take, and I think it’s still mostly accurate, but Glenn Greenwald was pushed out from The Intercept in 2020, when his weird political transformation became apparent. I was very sad to see his weird red-pilling, I really respected the way he handled the Snowden leak. Can’t really take him seriously anymore though. I don’t think they have anyone with his bizarre beliefs on staff anymore.

When people talk about the New York Times’ neoliberal bias, this is what we’re talking about. Lots of people won’t notice because it’s relatively subtle, but it is absolutely biased against progressives/actual liberals.

The New York Times published the headline “Bowman Falls in House Primary, Overtaken by Flood of Pro-Israel Money” — before swapping it out for “Bowman Falls to Latimer in a Loss for Progressive Democrats.”

This is why we need more independent outlets like The Intercept. This shit needs to be called out.

I used to live downwind of an oil refinery, and at least once a year (sometimes 5 or 10 times in a year) there was an illegal emission that blanketed the entire town with particulate matter. The air quality would go from perfectly safe to barely breathable in minutes. As someone with asthma, I felt it immediately, and would have to lock myself indoors with an air purifier.

We’re going to be dealing with significantly more wildfires and increasingly poor air quality thanks to climate change, so the least we could do is ensure that businesses don’t fuck up the air more than it already is.

Fuck the supreme court for doing everything it can to make our lives worse.