Clutch

@clutch3-16.bsky.social

130

Followers

784

Following

318

Posts

Calvinball practitioner

Posts Replies Media

Reposted by

Clutch

The number of people who have replied to either argue or bemoan that “MAGA doesn’t care” like that’s the voting bloc we have to mobilize is going to make my brain melt out my ears like taffy on a warm summer’s day

“They want to eliminate national parks” is a very simple way to get just about anyone on the Stop Project 2025 train. Are there much more glaring and life-threatening goals of P25? Yes but even your most bigoted cousin does not want to see the parks system sold for parts.

Reposted by

Clutch

Reply to

Micah

"I am willing to live with a result that is acceptable but not my ideal outcome for the next two years in order to prevent the worst case scenario" is seriously encouraging to see

Reposted by

Clutch

I know they get rolled all the time but for the Times to get rolled by “actually they just want to reclaim the values of Western civilization as they see it … with larger families and fewer immigrants” is the Times putting the 14 words in the paper

Reposted by

Clutch

The thing that's obvious to everyone and that nobody can actually write in the press is that the American (and yes, I'm sure elsewhere too) right wing is led by bad people and the object is to make more people extremely bad in basically every respect. It's anti-society

Reposted by

Clutch

These mistakes originalist justices are making aren’t about disputed interpretations of history, with evidence on both sides. They’re pulling quotes out of context to attribute ideas to founding figures that those figures adamantly opposed. (via @andycraig.bsky.social) reason.com/volokh/2024/...

The Supreme Court's Dubious Use of History in Department of State v. Munozreason.com Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion includes significant errors, and violates some of her own precepts against excessive reliance on questionable history.

Reposted by

Clutch

Reply to

Don Zeko

one of the most dishonest things people in my profession do is pretend as if “the story” and “the narrative” isn’t something they have direct control over

Reposted by

Clutch

It's pretty interesting what the media decides is front page news and what they don't decide is front page news! Trump being a child sex abuser with close connections to Jeffrey Epstein somehow doesn't merit the same coverage as "unnamed Dem insider has concerns about Biden's age"

I saw this was trending and had to google it "The post alleges that Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for this year's presidential election, "forced" young girls to "perform lesbian sex acts."

Donald Trump, Katie Johnson allegations: Everything we knowwww.newsweek.com Allegations from a lawsuit that was dismissed in 2016 are circulating on social media.

Reposted by

Clutch

"They're just fearmongering about Project 2025," brought to you by the people behind "They're just fearmongering about a coup" and "they're just fearmongering about abortion bans"

Reposted by

Clutch

Reply to

Dave Levitan

Writing for the NYT requires either having or pretending to have a degree of gullibility that could not occur in the wild

Reposted by

Clutch

1/ I'm agnostic as to whether Biden should withdraw from the race. It's a genuinely tough question IMO. But I have clarity on one thing: He should absolutely not step down as president. If Harris becomes President, the Vice Presidency is empty. Under the 25th Amendment ...

Reposted by

Clutch

occurs to me that bribing the president is now /always/ legal, since in every case the only way to distinguish gratuity from bribe is via evidence that could never be admissible

Reposted by

Clutch

if your instinct is "calm down, surely this is an exaggeration," allow me to assure you that it's really not

"Don't worry, if the president imprisons his political enemies, you can still get a writ of habeas corpus." "But to prove that's why you've been imprisoned requires proof of..." "Presidential motive!" "And under Trump v US, presidential motive is..." "Inadmissible!"

Reposted by

Clutch

Reply to

WAP

That didn’t happen, but posts like these are always a wonderful indication of whether a poster has any actual anti fascist politics or if they are mostly trying to find a socially acceptable way to hate liberals without consciously identifying as a republican

Reposted by

Clutch

This man is making his evil intentions as crystal-clear as they possibly could be, and everyone who cares about humanity should be blasting that message out in every possible venue.

Heritage Foundation president celebrates Supreme Court presidential immunity ruling: "We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be" www.mediamatters.org/project-2025...

Heritage Foundation president celebrates Supreme Court immunity decision: "We are in the process of the second American Revolution"www.mediamatters.org

Reposted by

Clutch

As well-meaning publishers try to navigate the coming storm of state laws against diversity, I hope they'll consider Timothy Snyder's Rule #1 (from his slim book ON TYRANNY).

Reposted by

Clutch

I am once again begging the democrats to yeet James Carville into the closest nuclear reactor if they want to have any hope of ever connecting with a single person under the age of 195 ever again

Reposted by

Clutch

this is 100 percent right. the SCOTUS decision here is part of Project 2025, it is preemptively helping Trump consolidate his dictatorship crookedtimber.org/2024/07/02/s...

Supreme Court Rules Hitler Immune from Prosecution for Burning Down Reichstag, Seizing Absolute Powercrookedtimber.org If the current Supreme Court had held comparable office in Weimar Germany, that is, its opinion in Trump v. United States would have rendered the judgment in this post’s headline. Never mind …

Reposted by

Clutch

Reply to

b-boy bouiebaisse

if john roberts et al are going to cosplay as politicians then they should at least have to face the voters once a term

Reposted by

Clutch

Reply to

Mitchell Epner

4/4 . . . same way that the Soviets used political troops to execute tens of thousands of soldiers who refused orders during World War II. According to Chief Justice Roberts and his cabal, there is not a thing that anyone could ever do to bring that President to justice. For shame.

Reposted by

Clutch

It's important to note that Trump tried to order this at least twice we know of during his regime.

right. the president could order troops to suppress protesters using live fire and the supreme court would extend that absolute immunity

Reposted by

Clutch

Reply to

Popehat

/8 At any rate, congratulations to the Federalist Society for an achievement beyond the reach of the British, outside the grasp of bloody civil war, impossible to Nazis and Soviets and terrorists: defeating the American idea.

Reposted by

Clutch

Reply to

Robert Black

You don't actually get to usurp the Court and use it to tear down the edifice of republican government and then whine about how we're violating your judicial independence when we try to hold you to account

Reposted by

Clutch

There are two elements to the immunity decision that are particularly extreme in a way that many will miss: (1) motive is irrelevant and (2) immune acts are not just excluded from prosecution, they’re excluded from evidence. /1

Reposted by

Clutch

Congrats to all the profs at elite law schools who loudly vouched for John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch when they were nominated. Hope you placed your students in some nice clerkships.

Reposted by

Clutch

The 14th Amendment says if you were involved in an insurrection you can't be president. SCOTUS said they won't allow anyone to enforce that because of reasons they made up. The Constitution doesn't say the president is immune from criminal law. SCOTUS decided he is because of reasons they made up.

Reposted by

Clutch

The Supreme Court’s ruling putting presidents above the law must be understood not simply as a grant of immunity for past crimes, but an enthusiastic endorsement of those he will commit if given the chance. www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...

The Supreme Court Gives Its Blessing to Trump’s Criminalitywww.theatlantic.com And gives him permission for a despotic second term.

Reposted by

Clutch

Reply to

We Put the FBI Man Into the Medicine Lodge

-This is not the end of days. Even Trump winning, as horrible as that will be, will not be the end of days. For the sake of those who came before us, those alongside us, and those who live after us, we must continue to live, breathe, and fight for that which is good in the world.

Reposted by

Clutch

The president is himself forever immune from prosecution for crimes committed using his official power, and he can pardon anyone for helping him to commit federal crimes, explicitly including an actions in furtherance of a coup to illegally hold onto the office of the presidency. That’s the upshot.

Reposted by

Clutch

Not one more minute of defensiveness from the Biden campaign, please. Not one more question answered about age or debates. All day, every day, a referendum on Trump's criminality and assault on the constitutional order, on what he would be like with blank check for his lawlessness.

Reposted by

Clutch

Despair creeping in? Worried things ultimately won’t work out for you? Is Hell getting a bit too Hellish? Consider setting those worries aside and trying Grim Determination and focusing on helping who you can however you can Ask your doctor if Grim Determination is right for you

One of the worst things about online in the last few years has been the idea of "cringe" and how its been used to crush the ideas of believing in things, wholeheartedness, hope.