My History Can Beat Up Your Politics

I don't mind him taking a position on Iran. I do mind him bashing colleagues. And realizing, they only get right wing love when they bash Dems. That's how Tulsi happens.

Question I posed earlier to Jerry (@presidencies.bsky.social) that I’d like to pass along to Alycia (@civicspod.bsky.social), Bruce (@myhist.bsky.social), and Kenny (@kennyryanaustin.bsky.social). Were Eisenhower and Ford the last upstanding Republican presidents?

*continued prosecuting those who fled draft, with a complicated clemency package at best.

And so in summary. I'm probably OK living under H.W., Ford or eisenhower. I will find more "moments" i like with eisenhower, such as when he spoke up about book burning. But I could live under any of them. I do worry with Ford or H.W. about the "next" if they reelected.

extension of Reagan is somewhat true. He does increase spending that Reagan cut, and that comes along with some federal tax increase. Pell Grants increase under Bush, bit more Medicaid and such. But more w Clinton of course.

Putin takes charge within 10 years of coup, KGB back in. I think a better supported Gorbachev and dissolving the USSR without the extreme Russian Nationalism and Putin would have been better. Also H.W. Bush was horrible on day of USSR 1991 coup.

More explainer on the pauza - H.W. Bush does think better and put together the Malta Summit end of 1989 but the year wait hurt Gorbachev's position. Now isn't that great? Don't we hate USSR and want it to fall? Well yes but with hindsight look what happened...

But of course the biggest problem with H.W. Bush is the son. No bush, no Dubya. No Dubya - in my opinion...less chance you get a Trump. Why? no Homeland Security, red alerts, unpopular war, more executive control, harsh treatment of press - (Libby affair, Major League A*hole controversy.)

This is not very known or studied but H.W. Bush and later his son were afraid of conservatives in the GOP. Reagan for his faults could tell conservatives where to go a few times - tax reform w Bill Bradley or Gorbachev and INF treaty.

Ford likely would have continued that, and so local jurisdictions up and down the United States, DAs were still putting charges on people who went to Canada to avoid the war. Just one issue of many.

In my view if Ford wins in 1976 it is like if McCain won in 2008. Sure, Democrats would like McCain better than Bush, but its denying a whole issue set that Obama brought in. Healthcare for instance. Same with Ford. So one thing Carter does is amnesty Vietnam draft dodgers.

Bush contributes IMO to the development of Yeltzin and eventually Putin by freezing out Gorbachev in the first year. Some call it the pauza. This crippled Gorbachev within USSR and forced him to bring in conservatives, many of whom do the 1991 coup.

When we see Ford and think "he seems great" say compared to Nixon or Reagan, it's worthwhile to remember for much in the GOP they knew it was a Democratic time after Watergate, huge Dem midterm in 74, and Ford thus in that context was against the grain a bit.

Ford was the right President for the right time and also it was right that Ford's tenure was short. It's worthwhile remembering that Ford's right hands were Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, and in a 2nd term they would have been more powerful.

That gets complicated to say. On several policy fronts he was a change. First of all, Reagan didn't get along well. Not chummy, let say. And Reagan in 1980 had to accept Bush as VP but was not necessarily happy.

3 votes dissent is important b/c it could presage denial of future review. So if new tariffs pushed. Fed. Judge knocks down, try to go to SCOTUS and only 3 votes to hear. Not enough. However this is not iron-clad, a 4th judge who voted affirmative on this opinion could do a friendly "I'll hear it"

With a little slap to Kavanaugh:" See supra, at 8–9; post, at 62–63. We do not speculate on hypothetical cases not before us. "

Kavanaugh argues, and so are a lot of supporters today that POTUS can use other statutes - Opinion answers: The cited statutes contain various combinations of procedural prerequisites, required agency determinations, and limits on the duration, amount, and scope of the tariffs they authorize.

and yet 3 is a plurality b/c no other reasoning has more votes.

Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. ___ (2026) Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump

Crazy decision but nonetheless a blow to Trump and his ill-considered notion that he can set tariffs target/duration/% by whim from the Oval. An opinion w/ 6 justices supporting decision [statue does not authorize Trump's tariffs], but only 3 supporting the reason why.

Jesse Jackson's iconic 1988 speech YouTube video by Sky News

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dfV...

An image of a load of Tory MPs and Councillors all in a line with an angry man shouting "I'm never voting for Tories again!" Above the same image of the reprobates all wearing Reform rosettes after defecting to the party and an image of a happy smiling man gleefully shouting "Yay! Reform!"

This image just gets bigger and bigger...

not only could we have had Lawerence we could have had Josh Allen in 2018.

Awful risk for him. He could be hurt, there could be other shining stars coming down the pike next year...

that being said, I'll provide my understanding on immunity from the past two days: it's not a matter under consideration with the state or fed prosecutor, but sure becomes important. Because if we shift to procedure, immunity is tested first (correct?) and if officer wins, there's no trial.

I guess I would say the only thing I have a license for is the history part. No expertise claimed, however reading/putting things together and trying to get to the best idea of what's going on. happy to stand corrected.

I'm only amazed that there are even debates on X anymore, but a few holdouts. Yes correct. It is entirely possible this Alito case never is uttered outside social media. As I understand it, it was 15 shots and officers pretty much in same positions. Case was on ground of "why so many shots"

(A rabbit hole in the Shot 2 and 3 theory is Plumhoff v. Rickard a case judge Alito (of course) ruled on which said "first shot justified than so is second." that is being hurled at me on X.
however in that case suspect sped off in car, then tried again, suggesting public safety. )

After immunity is lost, I do believe it would be MN prosecutors leading the case in federal court, with some role for the USAO but not the USAO trying. Of course welcome correction. The other notable thing is Arizona v. Maypanny says MN can appeal any of this it doesn't like, it has standing.

My own opinion is while it's a tough bar, shots 2 and 3 here, where he sidestepped the car and fired (to ensure death?), mixed with the general lack of threat of victim, mixed with contrary instructions from agents, you have a chance (more than a Jim Carrey chance) on letting the case through.