The idea that prosecutors just enforce the law is not grounded in reality. The level of discretion they have is more akin to the President than a legislator. And it’s not just that she did some of these things; she is actively proud of them!

One thing left out here (and that I’ve seen left out of other critiques as well) as her defending the denial of medical services to trans inmates. People who support her have argued she was required to do that as AG, but the California Constitution does not explicitly require it (but, in fairness, I’m no expert on…

Hard to evaluate this without knowing exactly what she said. For instance, it’s true that O’Rourke didn’t do enough to support other Democrats on the ballot in Texas; he refused to endorse Gina Ortiz-Jones, for instance. Actual money-sharing is stupid (and undemocratic), but there are similar criticisms that she could…

I would say that anything that improves the traditional public schools is a blow to charter schools; their main argument is consistently that traditional public schools not only aren’t, but can’t, get the job done.

As others have pointed out, ICE was also terrible under Obama.

One of the only things of substance she says in either video is that the left needs to get over its anti-law-enforcement bias. I’m curious, do the people supporting her here agree with that?

One of the only things of substance she says in either the announcement video or the GMA interview is that the left needs to get over their anti-law-enforcement bias. I’m curious, do the people supporting her here agree with that?

“With every new Smash game there are also new rumors, ranging from dead-on accurate to completely absurd. The newest rumor, which promises the additions of Banjo Kazooie and Geno from Super Mario RPG, is far closer to the latter, but it has still led to turmoil among Nintendo fans.”

It’s also just disingenuous. She wasn’t engaged in mimicking satire or whatever. She said those things because she more or less meant them, if the Times is going to keep her (which to be clear, they absolutely should) they should all just be honest about it and articulate why they think it is ok.

She shouldn’t have voted for Haley, but I know at one point she was literally the only Senator who had not voted for any of Trump’s nominees. And regarding the “most important” question, she answered it clumsily, but there’s not really anything wrong with the substance of what she said (you can disagree with it, but…

There is something really special about the classic “stop caring about these things, care about these other important things instead” comment when the alleged important things actually aren’t very important at all (I don’t think you understand either of the cases you mentioned).

I think a thing that Clinton has not realized is that there are a lot of people who both believe A) that the impeachment proceedings against him were bogus, driven entirely by bad faith political incentives; and B) that he actually should have been impeached and removed from office.

I would just like to point out that she is using a colon of all things to mean “out of,” as in two out of three.

An obvious example of something that Obama could do that would be both morally right and politically advantageous is to continue to draw time, effort, money, and attention to Puerto Rico.

“Let the market decide” doesn’t really work when in most cases that would mean giving them yet another opportunity to test out the market at the expense of other people. If Louis wants to take another stab at producing his own set and selling it himself on his website, sure, go for it. But if he’s getting money from…

Is there any evidence that Ansari has been punished at all?

The conclusion/headline re: Saquon simply does not make sense. If drafting a feature back is incredibly controversial as a value proposition second overall (and I’m being generous there), taking a RB at that position to only be a committee back is definitely not “worth it.”

Not to get too into the weeds, but this is generally considered an expansion of the preexisting anti-commandeering doctrine, it’s not like the lower courts were asleep at the wheel. The previous cases that found impermissible commandeering were all about making states take affirmative actions. And important background…

In light of all the talk about “trading lives” and Red Skull even saying “a soul for a soul,” I think it will matter to the extent that some of the surviving heroes will have to directly sacrifice themselves as the mechanism for everyone to return.

Even Supreme Court nominees (who are the only ones who have any good reason for not commenting on whether certain cases were rightly decided or not) have carved out Brown and a few other cases as exceptions that you can just say were right.