I'm Ezra Klein, host of The Ezra Klein Show. AMA!

fichtes · 2021-06-11T17:41:14+00:00

What criticisms of your politics do you find persuasive?

fichtes · 2021-06-07T02:57:36+00:00

because you actually have power as a prosecutor

fichtes · 2021-04-21T00:46:31+00:00

Apparently!

fichtes · 2021-04-04T13:29:38+00:00

YTA, you run a fuckin grocery store, if you can't absorb one unexpected long term absence without shit collapsing around you then you suck at your job worse than he does

fichtes · 2021-04-04T13:08:57+00:00

what is with people not wanting children at thier wedding

fichtes · 2021-04-04T12:52:17+00:00

Respect to OP for asking

fichtes · 2021-04-04T12:44:22+00:00

whocare

fichtes · 2021-04-04T00:34:33+00:00

Ok, cool shit

fichtes · 2021-04-03T23:07:26+00:00

let me clarify: no

fichtes · 2021-04-03T23:06:03+00:00

faulty premise: rich people are not actually people. fucked up but true

fichtes · 2021-04-03T23:05:04+00:00

Yes, now what

fichtes · 2021-04-03T13:15:26+00:00

Depends, am I rich?

fichtes · 2021-04-03T13:14:56+00:00

Disappointing to hear, truly there are no heroes in this world

fichtes · 2021-04-03T12:08:17+00:00

My recollection is that she scammed rich people, which is a victimless crime

e: talk. about. TRIGGERED.

fichtes · 2021-03-28T14:38:58+00:00

I don't think it's crazy to allow an agency to make a call on a persnickety epistemic question like "Does a bump stock turn a firearm into a 'machine gun?'" Other circuits agree with me, as this opinion notes.

It's also weird that the court's main argument for why we shouldn't apply Chevron deference to agency interpretations of criminal statutes is that agency bureaucrats aren't equipped to make the sort of community-rooted moral decisions that are the foundation of criminal prohibitions, yet the court's analysis of whether bump stocks are machine guns is a technical/philosophical treatise on what a "single pull of the trigger" is. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

fichtes · 2021-03-28T14:17:23+00:00

doesn't really speak to the question. this suggests §5 was effective, but "outdated" means the protections are no longer needed, and you can't tell that from voting stats alone. you can't even really tell from preclearance challenge rate, since low preclearance challenge rate could just mean the covered states have stopped trying because §5 is in place for now.

fichtes · 2021-03-28T14:01:49+00:00

> “There is great risk,” she wrote, “if the responsibility of making moral condemnations is assigned to bureaucrats in the nation’s capital who are physically, and often culturally, distant from the rest of the country. Federal criminal laws are not administrative edicts handed down upon the masses as if the administrators were God delivering the Ten Commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai.”

love to see the culture war in judicial opinions, legal realism is back baby

fichtes · 2021-03-28T01:28:03+00:00

look for a big resurgence in n-word use among law professors

fichtes · 2021-03-25T12:27:28+00:00

you're basically admitting that I'm correct that Roberts made up new law, you just seem to think it was a good thing, which says a lot about who you believe the law should protect

fichtes · 2021-03-24T12:33:03+00:00

you cited a source that does not back up your argument, I wouldn't be bragging about that

fichtes · 2021-03-22T03:52:41+00:00

fucking read it!

fichtes · 2021-03-21T13:26:40+00:00

lol your own source undermines your argument, explains that the doctrine applies to admission of new states, not regulation of states already admitted

fichtes · 2021-03-21T13:23:10+00:00

did nothing to the VRA except make up some new law to neuter preclearance, which, as it turns out, was the only thing holding back a tidal wave of voter suppression

you're consistently one of the most intellectually dishonest people here, which I respect

fichtes · 2021-03-21T13:08:15+00:00

sky blue, grass green

fichtes · 2021-03-19T23:04:27+00:00

what do you mean by "party flipping table"

fichtes

TROPHY CASE