Let’s be clear, though: judicial review has no enforcement. Compliance is voluntarily, and it can’t undo assassinations and coups.

And impeachment functionally doesn’t exist. It’s been demonstrated that senators will not impeach a president of their party, regardless of whether they agree with the charges.

Wow, for some reason, the bot really struggled to summarize this article. That reads like nonsense.

To give some personal context, Summer Lee represents Pittsburgh, where I grew up. I was watching this race somewhat closely, and was in town visiting family last week. I saw a lot of yard signs for Lee’s opponent, and many signs for Lee as well, though not as many as her rival’s in my parents’ heavily Jewish, upper middle class neighborhood.

As Ryan Grim writes, this is a big victory not just because Summer belongs in congress: her victory is a sign that the current approach to removing progressive critics of the war in Gaza from congress was dealt a serious blow in this race. Attempts to present her as out of touch or radical failed terribly. We should expect even more vicious attacks on representatives like Cori Bush, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that a major shift in power has begun. Strategies for silencing critics of the Israeli system of apartheid that were incredibly potent just two years ago are already looking far less effective when countered by organized progressive candidates.

This whole thread is spitting facts

The podcast Know your enemy has a great episode on this topic with Heilbrunn that just came out.

I’m not here to argue that their use of racial discrimination was a good thing

Yeah, as that sentence clearly says, that’s not my point.

I feel like you’re looking for a conflict where there is none. Do you think their policies were bad and treated people unfairly? I agree. They were bad and they treated people unfairly. The point I’m trying to make is that we should demand more than JUST an end to racially restrictive admissions. I’m "yes-and"ing you. There’s no reason to argue.

Again: they definitely aren’t being excluded based on their race anymore. The supreme court banned this practice completely. So I don’t know what there is to argue about.

I think it’s a distraction, though, because the underlying issue is that these institutions are a corrupt parasitic power retention project. They offer a very small number of people access to networks to ensure they can dole out favors in a carefully controlled manner, and then we argue about whether the people they’re choosing to let into this artificially limited power sharing network are unfairly discriminated against by race, as though what they’re doing would be okay if it had no racial bias.

I’m not here to argue that their use of racial discrimination was a good thing, but I think it’s a distraction from the fact that even now that they’ve ended the racial element of the program, they’re STILL a corrupt parasitic antidemocratic cabal. They’re still excluding people unnecessarily, it’s just the criteria they use has been changed to ensure that those people are unable to organize themselves into any kind of class action lawsuit.

1. I don’t think that’s DEI, that’s Affirmative Action.

2. The Supreme Court banned that, so it’s over.

3. The problem with ivy league admissions was never racial selection. It’s that it’s a cartel. It’s an artificially limited resource. Asian applicants aren’t being excluded for black people, they’re being excluded to leave empty space at a gigantic campus that could accommodate several times sad many students as they let in.

I don’t think that flows logically. I don’t think anyone predicates being upset on being surprised.

Do you read stories about prescription drug prices going up or the destruction in Gaza and say, ‘Shucks, this would be pretty upsetting… if it weren’t to be expected.’ ?

That’s possible (except the cable news thing, I don’t watch that).

My experience with DEI is primarily in the form of PR. I’m skeptical that DEI initiatives change hiring practices. I think it primarily takes the form of reporting, such as listing how many upper level managers are non-white. Which I think is totally harmless. Like you said, I don’t think it’s a big deal at all. But I’m skeptical it achieves much. I think it’s based on unexamined assumptions. Does increasing diversity in leadership meaningfully improve the experience for workers? And is that even the goal, or is increased diversity within board rooms itself the goal? Because if so, that’s kind of shitty goal for anyone who isn’t aspiring to join the 1%.

Mind you, I’m open to having my mind changed if there’s evidence otherwise. But I think some of the examples of benefits of DEI programs I hear don’t sound like new initiatives. Assessing the racial makeup of a an applicant pool, for instance, isn’t a DEI program, as far as I’m aware. I believe that’s an affirmative action program that has been around for decades. Which is good, but I don’t think that’s DEI.

I think this might be a semantic issue. Maybe the stuff I like actually counts as DEI and I just didn’t realize it.

I think that’s the intention, and it’s laudible, but in my experience it’s become something of a racket. An industry of consultants exist to receive money from corporations to launder their images. I think some of their recommendations are good, but ultimately it seems tokenizing and designed to brag about the fact that a board room full of ruthless Harvard grads isn’t all white men.

It seems highly performative. I haven’t seen credible evidence, for instance, that having more queer people on the board of a fossil fuel company changes their behavior or the long-term consequences for the poor families forced to live next to the company’s pollution.

I don’t mind these programs. I just think they’re a money maker and branding exercise rather than a genuine tool of change.

Now, socially responsible investing: that’s a conservative bogeyman that I think has some teeth.

This debate feels somewhat surreal because I feel like both sides are wrong.

Conservatives are clearly doing this because they’re pretty, vindictive, reactionary ethnonationalists. DEI is clearly harmless.

Conversely, I’ve not seen any evidence of these meaningfully ameliorating systemic racism at all. Honestly, they feel like another successful effort to turn a serious social problem into a profit generating industry, like carbon offsets.

(Maybe that’s what they’ll replace DEI with: some kind of Racism offset./s)

Anyway, what I’m saying is I have no horse in this race.

I don’t really know who this is directed to.

Like you said, it’s a memorandum. If someone committed, like homicide and cannibalism, a prosecutor would probably file charges and then it’d be up to a judge to determine if the reasoning in the memorandum is correct.

What a crazy legal defense. ‘Your honor, I’d like to dismiss these charges because I privately unilaterally decided while president that silently dissolving the the Constitution, usurping all powers of the other branches of government and asserting the divine right of kings is actually an unenumerated presidential power, which I secretly exercised three years ago but only decided to reveal now. Anyway, because of this, I’m actually the presiding officer in this court. Case dismissed.’

Obviously, I’m aware that it’s just a delay tactic, but even so, it’s truly bonkers.

I don’t understand what you mean. Aren’t swinging and evangelical Christianity both as Floridian was Alligators and hurricanes?

This seems like the kind of stuff the state is known for.

Wait what??!

(/Jk not at all surprising)

Came here to say “Raytheon”.

I see this kind of thinking often, with regards to young voters, black voters, blue collar workers, immigrants, women, etc.

‘We’ve checked with the experts and determined that they should be grateful! Why won’t they adjust their lived experience to match our policy platform!!’

It doesn’t matter whether you agree with them. They’re leveraging power. You are free to disregard them if you think your personal narratives are enough to keep you comfort after Trump wins.

If Biden and his supporters want to win, they need to stop arguing with their voters and start listening. It’s not that complicated.

The words you’re looking for are “immature” and “mature”.