Mike Johansen

Joe Biden and his circle are so desperate to get credit for being the ones who defend US democracy that they refuse to realize they are putting it very much in jeopardy with their hubris.

Reposted by

Mike Johansen

'Birkholz et al. have discovered that a mobile intron containing a homing endonuclease found within a viral RNA polymerase gene in one bacteriophage blocks productive infection by a related and competing coinfecting bacteriophage.' www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...

An intron endonuclease facilitates interference competition between coinfecting viruseswww.science.org Introns containing homing endonucleases are widespread in nature and have long been assumed to be selfish elements that provide no benefit to the host organism. These genetic elements are common in vi...

Reposted by

Mike Johansen

I’m on board with the idea that Biden is too old to campaign and should be replaced as the nominee. But calling for him to resign as president is absolute fucking political suicide and I hope the left realizes that’s exactly what the right wing is gunning for right now

FDR was one of our greatest presidents. . . .

IMO this is a straight-up ageist and ableist image, no?

Reposted by

Mike Johansen

Dexamethasone in critical COVID19 works via reversing monocyte dysfunction in a specific S100^hiHLA-DR^lo subset, survival is strongly linked to this reversal: www.cell.com/cell/fulltex...

The life-saving benefit of dexamethasone in severe COVID-19 is linked to a reversal of monocyte dysregulationwww.cell.com Dexamethasone was used as an effective drug for severe COVID cases during the pandemic. A study integrating single-cell and bulk transcriptomics in clinical cohorts reveals the molecular basis of its ...

This is going to get much worse in these areas. kffhealthnews.org/news/article...

Idaho’s OB-GYN Exodus Throws Women in Rural Towns Into a Care Void - KFF Health Newskffhealthnews.org Idaho’s law criminalizing abortion drove a high-profile exodus of OB-GYNs from the state more than a year ago. Now, two years after the U.S. Supreme Court rolled back abortion protections enshrined by...

Reposted by

Mike Johansen

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

Mike Johansen

The landmark reversal nullifies all previously lawful forms of right and makes it very difficult for Americans to make ethical decisions or be generally decent human beings without facing criminal charges.

Supreme Court Overturns 'Right v. Wrong'www.theonion.com WASHINGTON—Striking down the judicial precedent that established the legal supremacy of right over wrong more than two centuries ago, the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned Right v. Wrong.

Reposted by

Mike Johansen

T̶h̶e̶ a̶r̶i̶s̶t̶o̶c̶r̶a̶t̶s̶!̶ Originalism!

Reposted by

Mike Johansen

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.

OMG- this. It's like the Conquistadors of Justice just ignore all of human history and instead listen to some dude with a podcast.

It's just hilariously disingenuous. Imagine looking at, say, ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY and concluding that the biggest threat to liberty isn't abuse of power, but powerful people refraining from sufficiently wielding their authority out of fear that they might one day be held accountable.

Reposted by

Mike Johansen

Yup. The Constitution includes a narrowly-defined legal immunity for members of Congress in a specific circumstance. Not one word about Presidential or Supreme Court Justice immunity. Those parts were made up out of thin air.

Not that anyone particularly cares about original meaning, but think folks should still say it out loud: For all of the things that are unclear in the founding documents and unknowabilities of what the Founders intended, "the President can kill anyone or commit a coup" was *never* legally arguable

Reposted by

Mike Johansen

Reposted by

Mike Johansen

Tip: We aren't comparing the effect of the treatment (tx) to the effect of placebo. We are *defining* the effect as the *difference* in outcome between those allocated to standard of care (SoC) + tx to those allocated to SoC + placebo, where placebo is used for blinding.

Reposted by

Mike Johansen

I can’t believe the Supreme Court just ruled that the president can sleep outdoors in a public space.

Reposted by

Mike Johansen

Trump, who tried to overthrow an election, campaigned persistently for his fellow party members to grant him absolute immunity for his misdeeds in office. And they did. If you can't distinguish between "energy in the executive" and a constitutional crime spree, you've given up on US democracy.

Reposted by

Mike Johansen

So if Joe Biden declared today that November’s election is canceled and ordered the military to keep him in power, would that be an “official act”?

Perfect summation of the current court.

Presidents can do anything they please, but their agents and agencies can't do anything.

Reposted by

Mike Johansen

Absolutely wild that the court accuses the dissent of "fearmongering" with "extreme hypotheticals" when the actual basis for the indictment is a coup attempt that led to an attack on the capitol

amen.

The Circuit Court ruled that Trump is not immune from persecution in Feb 2024. SCOTUS could have just declined to touch that. Instead they waited five months to say "Trump is immune on some things, not others, y'all should figure out which," and it's very clear what they're doing

Reposted by

Mike Johansen

SCOTUS last week: Chevron is overruled because it’s our job to interpret law! Not the executive branch! SCOTUS today: who’s to say if the president behaved lawfully! 🤷‍♀️

Reposted by

Mike Johansen

Again there were many things embarrassing about Thursday’s debate but nothing more than CNN not asking a single question about the Supreme Court or its legitimacy

Reposted by

Mike Johansen

To reiterate what @kenwhite.bsky.social has been saying for a long time... the courts are not going to get us out of this mess. We have to do it at the ballot box.

The conservatives justices are akin to podcasters with lots of power.

“The justices accidentally, repeatedly referenced laughing gas in a disastrous ruling before declaring that judges know better than agency regulators” www.rollingstone.com/politics/pol...

The Supreme Court Is a Joke. It’s Not Funnywww.rollingstone.com The justices accidentally, repeatedly referenced laughing gas in a disastrous ruling before declaring that judges know better than agency regulators.

Reposted by

Mike Johansen

#MedSky #EpiSky #addictionsci #policysky #polisky 🛟 In its opinion dismantling the EPA's authority on interstate air pollution, the Supreme Court mixed up the pollutant nitrogen oxide (NOx) with nitrous oxide aka laughing gas (N2O). www.forbes.com/sites/alison...

Supreme Court Corrects EPA Opinion After Gorsuch Confuses Laughing Gas With Air Pollutantwww.forbes.com The error came in an opinion blocking an EPA policy meant to improve air pollution.

Reposted by

Mike Johansen

Reply to

ApocalypticaNow

2016: I'm fine voting for a woman for President, just not Hillary Clinton. 2020: Or Elizabeth Warren. 2024: Or Kamala Harris.

This seems about right.

What's really disturbing about the debate fiasco is there's no way to be confident that Biden has it in him to pull off the near-flawless execution he'll need to win at this point. At a minimum, the Bidens owe us a real conversation about that. My take: newrepublic.com/article/1832...

What Joe Biden Really Owes the Country Right Nownewrepublic.com There's no sugar-coating the debate, which was a disaster. At a minimum, he and Jill owe the country an honest conversation about whether he can still do this.