banner
LightNews
andycraig.bsky.social
Andy Craig
@andycraig.bsky.social
47K followers 900 following 2.9K posts
@theunpopulist.net Election law and policy, liberalism and democracy, and occasional pugs.
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Reposted by Andy Craig
susanmcp.bsky.social
Susan McPherson @susanmcp.bsky.social · 14h
“This is exactly the moment for people to stand up. And do I see enough people doing it? No, I don’t. It shouldn’t be that there are Democrats that are afraid, because you know what? We’re the targets. We need to be strong, we need to fight back.”

Thank you, @govpritzker.illinois.gov!
JB Pritzker Has Had It With Democrats Who Won’t Stand Up to Trump
www.nytimes.com
23 220 1K
Reposted by Andy Craig
gregsargent.bsky.social
Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social · 9h
This is good, from Hakeem Jeffries. More of this please, in every conceivable forum:

"Sycophants who aid and abet the President’s vengeful schemes will not be able to hide from the serious legal consequences of their behavior. They will be held accountable."
310 2.4K 8.1K
andycraig.bsky.social
Andy Craig @andycraig.bsky.social · 17h
Viscerally horrifying, but it's so obvious they felt they needed something other than one driveway in Broadview to "protect," and figured well there's the big federal courthouse let's throw that in. Without remembering that's not theirs.

They're blindly bumbling into extra constitutional crises.
joshuajfriedman.com
Joshua J. Friedman @joshuajfriedman.com · 17h
Chief Judge Kendall's statement comes as last night an Army commander told a federal court that DHS had so far made two requests for National Guard deployments in the Chicago area: (1) at the Broadview ICE facility, (2) at the Dirksen Courthouse on Friday. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
As of 1430 CDT on October 8, 2025, ARNORTH has received two requests for protection support. First, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requested federalized National Guard personnel to support protection of federal property and personnel at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Broadview, Illinois. Second, the Federal Protective Service (FPS) requested federalized National Guard personnel to support protection of the Federal District Court on Friday, October 10, 2025 due to two high profile cases involving DHS activities and personnel in the Chicago, Illinois metropolitan area.
3 50 160
andycraig.bsky.social
Andy Craig @andycraig.bsky.social · 18h
This is surreal.
royalpratt.bsky.social
Gregory Pratt @royalpratt.bsky.social · 18h
Chicago federal court chief judge says she has not requested National Guard for courthouse
2 25 110
andycraig.bsky.social
Andy Craig @andycraig.bsky.social · 20h
I don't even have to look to know he's petulantly siccing his hate mob on people who voice disapproval over on the hellsite. That's his whole deal. A sad little cult of losers who'll spam you with slurs and threats if you point out it's a sad little cult that spams people with slurs and threats.
13
andycraig.bsky.social
Andy Craig @andycraig.bsky.social · 20h
That's not what I said and it's certainly not the point he was making. It's bad and part of how it's bad is in how it could be worse is hanging over him.
1 7
andycraig.bsky.social
Andy Craig @andycraig.bsky.social · 20h
I mean, it's a point made very explicitly in the book, I'm not reading subtext into it.
1 9
andycraig.bsky.social
Andy Craig @andycraig.bsky.social · 20h
There's a kind of perverse honesty in that Fuentes revels in how openly awful he is, that's his schtick. Smith is just as bad, there's no hateful scumbag he won't bootlick for, but then goes full crybully if anybody dares say he doesn't merit respect. He's whiny in a way Fuentes isn't.
2 2 40
andycraig.bsky.social
Andy Craig @andycraig.bsky.social · 20h
I wouldn't even say Fuentes is necessarily the worse half of that pairing.
2 2 32
andycraig.bsky.social
Andy Craig @andycraig.bsky.social · 20h
That's part of the point for both why Scrooge is able to be so miserly with him and why Cratchit is so seemingly content with what he has.
7
andycraig.bsky.social
Andy Craig @andycraig.bsky.social · 20h
It could easily be worse, and for many people (and other Dickens characters) at the time it was. Both Cratchit and Scrooge are aware of this and comment on it, how he's still a level above destitution, i.e. homeless and starving. The distinction is more lost on us than it would have been then.
3 18
andycraig.bsky.social
Andy Craig @andycraig.bsky.social · 21h
This is a good thread on why such comparisons are kind of inherently nonsensical and convey a false precision.

But also, Cratchit isn't destitute! He's poor, obviously, but not destitute. Dickens wrote lots of characters who were in actual destitution, but that's not Cratchit's situation.
bretdevereaux.bsky.social
"Online Rent-a-Sage" Bret Devereaux @bretdevereaux.bsky.social · 1d
A good example of why direct inflation adjustment of this sort is more deceptive than clarifying when applied over very long stretches of time where consumption patterns are very different.

Basic foods (bread/grain) probably devours a third of Cratchet's income, but not the modern worker's.
karlykingsley.bsky.social
Karly Kingsley @karlykingsley.bsky.social · 1d
👇
1 28
andycraig.bsky.social
Andy Craig @andycraig.bsky.social · 22h
I don't know if it was enough to account for the ten additional votes needed, but I have no doubt some voted to acquit because they were afraid for their physical safety, and it wasn't only one or two.
1 5
andycraig.bsky.social
Andy Craig @andycraig.bsky.social · 1d
It's a lot easier for moderate Dems in red states and moderate GOP in blue states to win governor's races than Senate races, they really can't be equated. This is why Beshear isn't running for Senate and he would also lose if he tried. Or see Larry Hogan on the flip side.
1 8
andycraig.bsky.social
Andy Craig @andycraig.bsky.social · 1d
Yes, that whole argument was wrong and the weight of scholarly consensus was pretty firmly against it. But Senate Republicans latched onto it because it was an easier excuse than trying to pretend he wasn't obviously guilty.
1 6
andycraig.bsky.social
Andy Craig @andycraig.bsky.social · 1d
It isn't, but the problem is reading Section 3 to require conviction in either impeachment or a criminal prosecution would establish an easier way to get out of being disqualified than the one deliberately difficult and exclusive process for that authorized by Section 3.
2
andycraig.bsky.social
Andy Craig @andycraig.bsky.social · 1d
Or maybe the only 2383 violation you committed is "incite," and that term's not in Section 3, so maybe you make that argument. Very hair-splitting and implausible, granted, but I think it shows the point that they aren't strictly the same thing.
1 1
andycraig.bsky.social
Andy Craig @andycraig.bsky.social · 1d
The slight wiggle room there is, conceivably, you do some insurrecting against some particular statutory law's enforcement but not the Constitution qua Constitution, you're not trying to overthrow the government as such. I wouldn't bet on that argument working but it's conceivable in theory.
1 1
andycraig.bsky.social
Andy Craig @andycraig.bsky.social · 1d
It's hard to conceive of a scenario where somebody violates 2383, and is a covered oath-taker, and yet isn't disqualified by Section 3. Not strictly impossible I think, but even if they did violate 2383, that conviction isn't necessary to Section 3 disqualification which operates independently.
1 1
andycraig.bsky.social
Andy Craig @andycraig.bsky.social · 1d
You could have somebody convicted under 2383 who isn't disqualified under Section 3, and you can have somebody who is disqualified under Section 3 but hasn't been convicted under 2383. The similarity is superficial but they don't really interact at all.
1
andycraig.bsky.social
Andy Craig @andycraig.bsky.social · 1d
You can't get from 2383 conviction to Section 3 disqualification without having to still also interpret and apply the terms of Section 3 itself, because the latter is narrower. So that criminal statute just really isn't relevant at all to this constitutional provision.
1
andycraig.bsky.social
Andy Craig @andycraig.bsky.social · 1d
It does cast a wider net, which is why you can't read a conviction under 2383 as establishing 14A disqualification. You could be convicted of that crime and also still not disqualified under Section 3.
1
andycraig.bsky.social
Andy Craig @andycraig.bsky.social · 1d
2383 is broader in that it covers "incites," which Section 3 doesn't. Maybe you could argue that's a distinction without a difference, that incitement still falls under Section 3's terms, but it's another way in which it doesn't perfectly map one to one.
2 1
andycraig.bsky.social
Andy Craig @andycraig.bsky.social · 1d
Section 3 is also about insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution in particular, not against the laws generally, and I think that's conceivably relevant in some cases.
2 3
andycraig.bsky.social
Andy Craig @andycraig.bsky.social · 1d
There are differences. For one thing, 2383 isn't limited to people who've previously taken a covered oath and then betrayed it, which is the core of Section 3. The disqualification penalty (which also probably isn't enforceable anyway) is limited to federal offices only, which Section 3 isn't.
1 1