The Soviets moreso than the US in the case of Afghanistan.
The country actually received substantial modernization aid from both, but eventually went through a series of coups that culminated in the Soviet invasion of the country and the rise of the mujaheddin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan#Barakzai_dynasty_and_British_wars
The US isn't blameless in how the country turned out, but it's a much less direct line than it is with Iran.
Also worth noting: Wray's statements were made in response to questions asked by Jim Jordan.
This isn't something Democrats went looking to dig up. It got stirred up by one of Trump's frothiest allies.
Afghanistan in the 1970s was similarly culturally ascendent and relatively progressive.
See, e.g.,:
I'd be in favor of more. 26 is just because I think there's a very easy argument to make for "every circuit gets direct representation on SCOTUS" and it's not a huge leap to go to two per circuit from there.
Increasing throughput is definitely one of the reasons I'd support doing this as well. Thanks for highlighting that since I didn't.
The problem is that the process for amending the Constitution is heavily, structurally biased in favor of the Republicans now. The GOP would absolutely rally around this issue because it's one of the primary things allowing them to hang on to power right now.
I don't believe in engaging in theatrics with a zero percent chance of success when there are real, feasible steps that could be taken to make things better.
Article III only lays out there there will be a supreme court and a Chief justice and makes Congress responsible for establishing them. It does not lay out the makeup or structure of that court. The current body of 9 justices is set by federal statute and could be changed by a simple act of Congress.
Article III also explicitly states that whatever Justices are appointed hold their office as long as they maintain good behavior (I e., as long as they haven't been impeached) and that Congress cannot reduce their pay.
Term limits are explicitly unconstitutional.
Setting the number of judges is explicitly within Congress' constitutional powers.
Randomized panels would probably be challenged just because it's never been tested, but the language in the Constitution re: Congress establishing the Supreme Court is vague. That said, Congress has already established inferior Federal courts that operate in this manner, so there's precedent.
Beyond physical injury, Trump's description of the event -- along with Wray saying the FBI is unsure -- really makes me lean toward it not being a direct wound.
Trump said he heard bullets "whizzing" by. A supersonic bullet directly next to your ear isn't going to make a whizzing sound like on TV; there's going to be a loud, distinct crack from the sonic boom as it passes by.
I fully believe Trump would be leaning into that hard if that's what he'd heard. "It was like thunder next to my head. The loudest thunder. The greatest thunder you've ever heard. HUEG thunder." It's exactly the kind of thing he loves to play up.
I think you're missing the point.
As things stand now, you get cases that are tailor made to the whims of specific people because there's a 100% chance it ends up in front of those specific people. That's an absolutely massive problem.
The point is that you're less likely to have cases that are specifically aimed at stroking any given individual's brand of crazy when there's only a ~1 in 3 chance they'll even hear it. A panel of 9 from a pool of 26 means that you go from a 100% chance that, say, Alito and Thomas, hear a case together to around 12%. That's a huge gamble when it takes years and a massive amount of money to get a case in front of SCOTUS.
No, it doesn't solve all conceivable problems with the court. But it'd help address the fact that SCOTUS justices are entirely too powerful as individuals and it can be done via simple act of Congress.
Appointees should just be subject to term limits and yearly affirmation votes by members of the BAR association to renew or revoke their qualifications
Not going to happen. SCOTUS terms are life appointments constitutionally. That means you've gotten into amendment territory which just plain is not realistic right now.
This matches the broad strokes of the approach I favor as well.
There are 13 Federal circuits. Expand to one justice per circuit, then double that.
But the core of the approach, regardless of the exact number, is to shift to having cases heard by randomized panels of judges. The amount of power wielded by individual justices right now is just insane. Dilute it down so that the power rests with the body rather than individuals.
Further, randomizing who hears any given case would help curtail the current environment where test cases get tailored to the idiosyncracies and pet theories of individual judges.
SCOTUS should be deciding cases based on rational reading of the law, not entertaining wing nut theories that Thomas or Alito hinted at in previous decisions. That sort of nonsense becomes a lot less feasible if there's no guarantee a case will actually end up in front of Thomas or Alito.
Almost anywhere that you can find a Panda Express, you can find a mom and pop Chinese takeout restaurant that offers basically the same dishes (and more), but will be tastier, cheaper, and give you a ton of food for the money.
I don't care that Panda Express exists because there's no need for it to.
Beshear has really impressed me with his media appearances this week. He has a folksy charm while not pulling any punches. I think he'd be my preference, but Kelly also seems like a decent choice.
You tell them you don’t work for $500.
Or you tell them that you do.
Per hour.
But since they're clearly such great mates with dad, you can cut them a deal.
Would be rather funny to flip the right's obsession with with weaponizing Section 230.
It strikes me as rather arguable that this is evidence that he's acting as a publisher rather than a platform.
our last "just war" that was even a little cut and dry was world war two.
The Balkans were pretty cut and dry in justified intent.
It was an intervention into the worst genocide in Europe since WW2. We're talking not only wholesale slaughter of civilians, but even the establishment of literal rape camps as part of an organized, systemic campaign of ethnic cleansing. What was happening in the former Yugoslavia was absolutely horrific and the US and NATO stepping in to put an end to it was an unequivocally good thing.
That said, there were still questionable incidents like the "accidental" bombing of the Chinese embassy or the numerous cases of civilians killed by NATO bombs. But that mostly emphasizes the fact that there's no such thing as a clean war. War is always going to leave blood on your hands, even if it's being fought for the right reasons.
Crowdstrike is very entrenched in healthcare. Hospitals were routinely at capacity in 2020.
The outage this weekend probably killed some people due to disruptions in delivering care. It definitely would have then.
She's barely said anything publicly.
The fact that we're hearing what's she's saying in private means that there's been a lot discussed in private and the fact that we're hearing it isn't a coincidence or a leak. It's a sign that a lot of weight is being put into this effort.
Pelosi is an incredibly powerful woman -- still -- and the public never sees a lot of the work she does. Power brokering typically happens behind closed doors. The fact that we're seeing this is definitely a reason to take notice.
Also if we are to blame Obama for anything, it should be for him discouraging Biden not to run in 2016 over Hillary
Deeper than that. Obama inherited the party infrastructure Howard Dean built as DNC chair that was effective at state and local levels. That infrastructure completely fell apart after Obama loyalists took over the party after 2008. Dean ran a 50 state strategy and had built the party to support lower level candidates and contest elections Democrats had traditionally ignored. Post Obama the party shifted back to a focus on marquee races that didn't really provide support to state parties and startup candidates.
That's genuinely the single biggest Obama fuckup that doesn't really get talked about much because it's very insider baseball. But it's had very real effects on how Democrats have failed in lower level elections in the years since, which has percolated up into everything else since.
That said, a lot of the reason we've gotten as much progress out of the Biden administration as we have is because Warren's influence helped land a lot of her allies into key decision making positions throughout the administration. The heavy pushes on things like student debt relief or actual antitrust enforcement are coming from parts of government where she helped put the people making those decisions in place.
Like, I still would have preferred a President Warren, but in a lot of ways we ended up getting a Warren-Lite administration anyway. It's just gone largely unnoticed because she's very good at wielding soft power behind the scenes on the boring, wonky policy making stuff that doesn't get as much attention but has real impact on what government actually does.
This is an issue that Biden has consistently refused to understand to be a political loser well before any suggestion of a decline. He's consistently vocal on it in a way that would suggest he genuinely believes it to be a winning position.
In reality, it's practically impossible to do and mostly serves to energize the right and alienate voters in states he actually needs to win. It'd literally be better politically to say nothing on the topic, but he insists on pouring fuel on the "they want to ban our guns" fire.
I have been, on the whole, positive about Biden, but this is a massive blindspot he's held for a long time.
Maybe it’s simply because he’s not the sitting president and his detail is much smaller?
USSS details are heavily supplemented by locals for events like this. Even if the USSS team was relatively small, somebody -- whether it was USSS, local, or state police -- should have had a location that blindingly obvious secured. That building was literally the only real elevated position with clear line of sight in the vicinity of the stage. The fact that somebody could get up there without immediate security response is really almost unfathomable if it weren't for the fact that it happened.