It took $1.7 million to build a public toilet in San Francisco.

After a scandal, someone from Nevada volunteered to do the installation for $140K, but the city didn't know if it could accept because Nevada was one of the 30 states it was boycotting over LGBT. pic.twitter.com/MUYQrpLOVn

— Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) April 28, 2024

https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1784004678553940113

Per Daniel Feldman:

TikTok does not actually have to divest.

They can instead pay a fine of $5,000 per user, which works out to $850 billion. pic.twitter.com/wk1Z4zIc1a

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) April 26, 2024

Can't Make It Up: The President of the United States has been assigned “walkers.”

You heard that right. The man that has access to nuke codes now requires aides to escort him across a lawn.

These handlers now walk between Biden and the pool cameras, "to draw less attention to… pic.twitter.com/RO81Dvufb6

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) April 26, 2024

Remember the expansion of warrantless spying that Biden rammed through Congress and signed into law a week ago despite public outcry? That the FBI had already used to spy on Americans more than 278,000 times? You'll never guess what he's using right now against student protests: https://t.co/0UMIC77S09

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) April 26, 2024

https://old.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1ccz861/justice_sotomayor_somberly_places_death_of/?sort=controversial

It was a profound exchange.

On Thursday, as justices of the U.S. Supreme Court heard extensive oral arguments over whether Donald Trump, as a former president, is totally immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken while he was in office, it began with a series of questions to special counsel attorney Michael Dreeben from Justice Samuel Alito.

Alito, more than an hour into proceedings, started to press Dreeben about whether the prosecution of a president would undermine the stability of a country's governance. It would seem easily agreeable, the justice argued, that a “stable, democratic society” required a defeated candidate to leave office peacefully if he lost an election.

“Even a close one,” Alito said. “Even a hotly contested one.”

Dreeben easily agreed but when Alito asked what may change if that same outgoing incumbent realized he couldn't head off into “peaceful retirement” after a defeat but “may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent,” would that not lead the country into a destructive cycle of destabilizing democracy, too?

For the special counsel's attorney, the reasoning was “exactly the opposite.”

Mechanisms already exist to contest elections that are both legal and far more appropriate. Dreeben took the window to remind the court that Trump lost every lawsuit he raised to challenge the 2020 election, save for one and that outcome wasn't “determinative,” he said.

Alito's argument appeared to strike a solemn but dissonant chord in Justice Sonia Sotomayor after the back-and-forth with Dreeben.

Turning to Dreeben, the justice asked if the “stable democracy society” required the “good faith of its public officials” and that “good faith” would assume those officials would loyally follow the laws of the United States.

“Correct,” Dreeben said.

But putting that ideal situation aside for a moment and considering the real world, Sotomayor remarked that “there is no fail-safe system of government.”

“Meaning, we have a judicial system that has layers and layers and layers of protection for accused defendants in the hopes that the innocent will go free,” she said. “We fail routinely.”

The justice continued:

But we succeed, more often than not, in the vast majority of cases and the innocent do go free. Sometimes they don't and we have some post-conviction remedies for that. But we still fail, and we've executed innocent people.

Having said that, Justice Alito went through step by step all of the mechanisms that could potentially fail.

In the end, if it fails completely, it's because we've destroyed democracy on our own, isn't it?

Dreeben argued that the framers of the Constitution designed the separation of powers to avoid — or, at minimum, limit — the abuses of a democratic system.

“The ultimate check is the goodwill and faith in democracy and the crimes that are alleged in this case are the antithesis of democracy,” he said.

Trump faces four felony charges in Washington, D.C., connected to his alleged effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Separate of this exchange on Thursday, there are many other notable moments at arguments including Justice Neal Gorsuch dreading the idea of having to face the issue of whether a president can issue a self-pardon and Justice Amy Coney Barrett asking a Trump lawyer if he conceded that private acts are not protected.

!chuds

https://twitter.com/Liz_Andromeda/status/1783618711137505445

JUST IN: Justice Alito just blew up the entire argument by the DOJ.

Alito: "If the president gets advice from the attorney general, that something is lawful, is that an absolute defense?"

Dreeben: “yes”

Alito: “Wouldn’t the President just pick an AG who’ll let him do… pic.twitter.com/T2L7u29nZU

— 🇺🇸Travis Media Group🇺🇸 (@TM1Politics) April 25, 2024

Oh my god…

I missed this originally but he’s also proposing a 25% tax on UNREALIZED gains.

UNREALIZED.

That’s for wealthy individuals but still, absolute insanity. A lot of people would just leave the US and the government would likely have less tax revenue than before. https://t.co/J0XecKgAM0

— Geiger Capital (@Geiger_Capital) April 24, 2024

The Ukraine aid already isn't enough