You assume that blatant philosophical inconsistency and shame have more force than they do. The self-proclaimed originalists rarely do originalism in any rigorous or consistent way. Indeed, they rarely do it at all. They, like almost everyone else, are cafeteria originalists. The only potentially interesting question is whether they are cynics or merely believe their own press clippings.

Maybe you can explain why you think your comment makes sense. Like most of us here, I am a "member" of the body politic, and care very much about the rules of that club. I am not a member of a variety of other clubs, like the Roman Catholic Church, the Rotary Club, or the Grosse Pointe Garden Club, which have rules that I might think silly, and might even oppose, if I had to adhere to them. But since their silly rules have nothing to do with me or my interests, or those of people I care about, I don't bother myself about them. If that's "privilege," it's not a definition I know anything about. Unless minding one's own business is "privilege."

Well, that certainly clears things up.

Is there some sort of connection between your first and second paragraphs?
Are you under the impression that anyone whose name ends in a vowel is a member of the Catholic "club"? Or that, to the extent that you're asking a non-member whether he happens to agree with what the club boss says on something other than club rules, some non-club-related identity is relevant? If the Pope says "X," and X is a matter of club rules (e.g. who can be priests, what age you have to be to receive communion, whether you can eat pork), non-members are well-advised not to bother themselves about it. If X is a matter of general moral argument (abortion, capital punishment, treatment of migrants, whether you can eat meat at all), non-members can agree or disagree with the Pope just the same as they can agree or disagree with some random social media pundit.

I don't have an opinion about the rules of a club of which I am not a member. Orthodox Jews don't eat pork? No skin off my nose and more bacon for me.

The Supremes have been hard at work on this for about 50 years.

It's certainly "another thing," but what kind of thing is it? You're pointing out that a religious leader, purporting to rely on the word of some God, has said something you agree with and hoping that what the religious leader is saying will get some traction. People who care what the religious leader has to say may find it compelling; people who don't, won't. And the problem is?

"Invoking God" is pretty much the job description of a religious leader. Maybe that sounds silly to those of us who don't believe that there is a God or that the religious leader in question has some pipeline to the God being invoked, so we don't have to take the invocation seriously. But we can't really ask them to play by our rules.

You tell us.

So whom?

Typo or Freudian slip?

It wouldn't surprise me if that was what's behind this, but a President has always been able to say what he damn pleases and can make what he says the "position of the United States." The "position of the United States," however, is merely that, a "position."* It isn't law, and isn't a license to disregard what is law.

*Just the other day, I was talking with a lawyer who kept saying "our position is..." I told him that may be his "position," but if push came to shove he'd have to come up with a reason that a court would buy it, and he hadn't given me one.

Anyone for whom DEI is a top 25 issue is either not a serious person, or very serious indeed, and pushing an agenda that they dare not openly advocate in polite company.

WTF does that even mean? It goes without saying that, in legal proceedings, the position of the United States on what the law is or should be is presented by DOJ, under the direction of the AG and, ultimately, the President. Outside of legal proceedings, nobody speaks for the United States in any way that matters. If a rogue AUSA does something stupid in court, he or she can be fired. If the United States Attorney for the Western District of East Bumf**k mouths off at a bar association dinner, he or she can be slapped down. Is this EO a solution in search of a problem?

I don’t really have a say in what theories that physics chooses to pay attention to. Or college courses choose to teach…I guess theoretically I could, at least for public colleges, but I think physics should probably figure that out itself.

Likewise, we don’t really have a say in what theories sociological and political scientists pay attention to. However…they do not actually pay attention to critical race theory, they barely pay attention to critical theory at all.

A point that, in a sane world, would not need to be made.

So that's not an alternative.

No. The NYC Charter lays out the line of succession. First in line is the Public Advocate, then the City Comptroller.

As opposed to whom? Trump and Putin?

Who is paying what price?

Unless he lucks into a crowded field of candidates with minuscule name recognition (Andrew Cuomo is licking his chops), this deal will guarantee that Adams loses. Then what?

And they'll nominate someone worse anyway when they get the chance. What's the old saw about the bird in the hand?

The "compromise" is vote for our guy rather than yours (who did. you know, win) or we'll nominate someone worse? That isn't anything anyone recognizes as a "compromise."

For the last dozen years, someone or other has occasionally tried to make the case that just because Mitt Romney was the Republican most palatable to Democrats, the Democrats had some obligation to support him, even over the candidate of their own party, that it was just plain mean of them to campaign vigorously against him (binders of women! 47%! dog on top of car! out-of-touch venture capital guy!), and that, therefore, we have only ourselves to blame when the Republicans nominate someone worse.
It didn't make much sense then and doesn't make any more sense now. The only people responsible for the quality of the Republican candidates are Republicans.

It never ceases to amaze me that anyone would hold Democrats responsible for the quality of Republican candidates. Or vice versa, if the question ever came up in reverse.

Vince McMahon escapes the figure four leg lock:

https://www.aol.com/news/feds-drop-criminal-probe-whether-120000591.html