But it would be the President who chooses which cases to ignore and which not to . . . which is simply not a power he or she has. Your argument is “lawlessness and dictatorships are good when they benefit me; how could this possibly go wrong?!”

Divorce him if that’s what you want. You’re still part of this flaming clown car dumpster fire until you actually make some sacrifices to separate yourself from that rapist. 

The Constitution has a judicial dictatorship. I’m defending the concept that the Executive doesn’t get to pick and chose which laws to follow, and that there is a third branch of government which decides whether (1) the laws pass are even allowed under the larger structure of the Constitution, and (2) whether the…

“And I would go even further—even if the Supreme Court upheld this decision, I would say the administration should even ignore THAT.”

The law is what courts say it is. That’s part of the deal.

And I’ll say it again: the harm to American citizens from living in a world where the President gets to ignore whatever Supreme Court decisions they disagree with is monumentally greater than the harm from a ruling saying the FDA needs to re-approve one of two major abortion pills. You are not fully comprehending the…

“The drug won’t become available if the next approval gets challenged!”

Then it will be overturned by the courts of appeal. 

And the drug becomes available again without tearing up the Constitution and ending the rule of law in the United States? I see that as a win. 

“As to (2), if the court finds that the FDA’s original approval was flawed, the court will also find any subsequent approval flawed.”

“The question is, how do we tackle those additional costs,” Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares said”

The FDA re-approved the drug using the same methodology as the other abortion pill. 

That’s the system we have. Literally all we need to solve this problem is (1) a Court of Appeal who overturns the decision or (2) an FDA who just re-approves the drug.

I don’t think you want to go down the path of “whoever the President is gets to decide what is and isn’t Constitutional or legal and can just do whatever they want because they ‘have an army.’”

Nobody is going to have to ignore a court ruling; the Biden administration is going to appeal the ruling and seek (and almost certainly win) an immediate suspension of enforcement of the trial court decision pending appeal. 

Guns are fucking cringe. 

It is a Boomer issue; the politics of SF have been controlled by boomers for decades, and they are responsible for the build condition of the City currently. They continue to exercise real political power as the entrenched landowners; younger tech workers are renters, and transplants, and short-timers, who have much…

These are all fair points, but the biggest threat to Black San Franciscans has historically been, and continues to be, the city’s Planning Board, whose NIMBY boomer bullshit has nearly priced the entire Black population out of the city by refusing to allow now housing to be built. 

They’re nice cars that outperform nearly all of their rivals, although with some serious deficiencies in some areas. Touch grass if you think any car buyers give a shit about whatever nonsense political posturing you are obsessed with.

Jack Black is a national treasure and must be protected at all costs.