Longer Step: Ideas for Justice and Sustainability

  Today, the conservative Supreme Court got it wrong on a major immunity decision. I mostly agree with them: A U.S. president should be immune from liability for actions taken within the scope of his or her presidency ("official acts"). That's fine*, but the court stopped there. It should have given us a narrow scope of what "official actions" are. With no limit given, there are two likelihoods, both negative, and I curse this Court for it: (a) A President can now make 'political prosecutions' against perceived enemies, with impunity; and (b) Any attempt by lower courts to impose limits are going to go back to the Supreme Court, causing years of delay whilst a dictator president is free to do evil left and right against their own citizens. Welcome to the new America, where all that stands between the people and 'whimsical imprisonment' is the personal ethics of our president. If we ever have a leader who throws political enemies into prison, with...

  We always have to stop and think, and avoid knee-jerk reactions. The Left (the space where I reside) is upset that the Supreme Court terminated Affirmative Action. But California did the same, decades ago, and has found ways to ensure that its public universities' student mix "almost perfectly matches the state's diversity:" 47% are Hispanic,, 21% White, 4% Black... And, while I don't support the Court's decision, I do understand it. Giving preference to any minority group is a form of discrimination against other groups, and, in general, discrimination should be unlawful. Personally, I'm fine with giving special treatment to all groups that have been systematically downtrodden, by our bad policies, for centuries. It's a way to try to right a wrong. But, the law generally frowns on that. But this ruling, in the hands of Red states, will have the effect (whether it's done intentionally or not) of reducing the number of minority students in their u...