It's a pretty polite article, in all. I'm not yet taking it as a sign that the NY Times, or any other media outlet, is going on a pro-truth crusade. But what if they did? I don't think it would make a dent. Fox News viewers are in their own epistemic universe. That is the very point of Fox News.

Anyway, the first amendment is incoherent as a concept. It has led us into multiple thickets. It is undermining our ability to self-govern.

It's kind of a scandal that the idea persisted for so long, despite the lack of any evidence for it.

The Holmes/Brandeis concept of a "marketplace of ideas," through which the truth would outcompete lies, lies in absolute shambles. It was an sketchy concept from the start--the worst kind of legal pseudo-empiricism that amounts to judges wishcasting about how politics works.

At minimum, given the proliferation of lavishly-funded speech outlets devoted to purposeful lying, it’s become impossible confidently to justify free speech on instrumental grounds.

Yes, that makes sense. I just get the sense that the center on this issue is moving quickly to the left.

Well, I guess I gotta count myself among the people who think this is inadequate. And it's not just the statement. It's Obama's habitual aloofness from the entire situation. He's building a gigantic library.

Fortunately, the GOP needs more than just Fetterman. We'll see now if Schumer is worth anything more than zero as a Senate leader.

"What [Madison] didn't realize is that ambition can form partnerships" is exactly right. Madison immensely overrated as a political theorist.

I do not disagree with you. But there are causes and immediate causes. The decision in Trump v. U.S. is the immediate cause. Every disaster has a Rubicon and that insane irresponsible right-wing bullshit decision was ours.

In any event, there are a lot of "but for" causes here--system failure this massive always has many contributing factors. But the salient cause, the immediate cause, the most proximate cause, is the fucking ideologically-blinkered morons in the supreme court majority removing the final restraint.

I don't understand why people want to quibble on this, especially when I am clearly correct. You say to a madman who aspires to be a violent authoritarian, "nothing you do with have consequences," and violent authoritarianism is what you will get. Directly.

As far as I am concerned, when this is over, the supreme court and the entire institution of extremist US judicial review should be razed to the ground. We need a new order with a lot more popular sovereignty.

That certainly did not help. But the court's insane idea that the republic will fall if the president can be held responsible for his acts was direct license for the violence we're seeing now. They essentially greenlighted violent authoritarianism.

Again, those are internal house rules. They can be changed by the party and power. The party and power is the Republicans.