I knew that Texas was putting up razor wire so that undocumented immigrants would drown, and that this was a middle finger to the Biden administration, but I didn't fully understand the legal background of what was being threatened.

This case should be one of the easiest that the Supreme Court has ever confronted. For more than 200 years, SCOTUS has forbidden state authorities from interfering with the execution of federal law. Texas, abetted by the 5th Circuit, has disobeyed that foundational principle. It has done so by nullifying border policy enacted by Congress, which holds constitutional authority over immigration. Why has the Supreme Court taken so long to respond? Why did the justices not immediately freeze the 5th Circuit's decision? Their delay may have encouraged the radical court, which allowed Texas to maintain a dangerous, 1,000-foot barrier in the Rio Grande on Wednesday. It seems unlikely that five justices agree that Abbott can void Congress' commands. But what else explains the delay? Does the court's 2021 decision to let Texas nullify Roe v. Wade suggest that the conservatives are open to more mutinous nullification?

All we know for sure is that, with each passing day, the Supreme Court grows more complicit in Texas' lawless nullification scheme. The Justice Department's filings have grown increasingly alarmed; Prelogar has highlighted the fact that "armed personnel" of the state are in conflict with both border agents and active-duty service members. There is, in short, a standoff at the border. It cannot last forever. Texas Guardsmen have become progressively more confrontational, declining to give Border Patrol access even for medical emergencies (in violation of a court order). They keep expanding the area that's fenced off to the federal government, asserting an absolute right to lock out both border and military officers. The situation is eerily reminiscent of 1861, when Confederates opened fire on Fort Sumter following Union soldiers' refusal to evacuate, marking the start of the Civil War.

(I chopped off the next part, where he says that he does not actually think we are not on the brink of a civil war.)

But anyway: should Biden send in the National Guard? What else do you do?

Mossy Character writes:

Prices are falling:

Prices for used electric vehicles fell by almost 30% between June 2022 and June 2023. During the same period, new EV prices fell nearly 20% from their peak of $66,390. [...] It's hard to know what these lower prices on new EVs will mean in the long run, especially as more used ones become available, said Krebs. "We've never had a used EV market; it's only beginning to develop," she said. "It may end up expanding the EV market by making EVs accessible and more affordable to people."

But:

Black Book's forecast for October 2026 paints a stark picture, projecting a decline to 56 percent in the retention of value for 3-year-old vehicles, while 3-year-old EVs are anticipated to retain only 45 percent of their original value.

Wider ($):

Carmakers are likely to have to erode what little profit margin they have in EVs in order to prevent them being undercut by new, cheaper models from China, he added. [...] Weaker resale values for battery cars means new EVs will be comparatively less affordable than petrol or diesel models that are expected to lose less value over the same period. [...] The metric is key for setting lease prices, where a motorist will finance the amount of money that a vehicle loses over a three-year lease. The larger value loss will mean a greater need for finance. About 60 per cent of new vehicles in Europe are bought on a lease, while in some markets such as the UK it is more than 90 per cent.

Heebie's take:
1. I imprinted on the idea that you shouldn't buy a used hybrid because the battery will die on you, and replacing the battery is exorbitant. Is that still true? What do we know about the lifespan of EV batteries these days?

2. I foolishly agreed to a very hectic T/Th morning schedule this semester. It will sometimes be the case that I can't post until lunchtime. BE WARNED! (Today is not one of those days, though. It depends on whether my break between classes gets filled with a meeting or not.)

NickS writes: I think this is a good (if overstated) description of why it is that we're preparing for a Biden-Trump rematch:

Democracy needs political parties, and the United States of America doesn't really have them.

...

One problem with this is that in the name of empowering the people, we have denied the people something they were previously accustomed to: a choice between two appealing presidential contenders.

...

[I]t's only recently, as the system has become increasingly democratic, that the nominees have gotten increasingly unpopular.

It sounds kind of paradoxical, but it follows pretty straightforwardly from the fact that we're not letting political professionals do their jobs. We have lots of columnists doing takes like "Hey! Trump is a criminal and Biden is old! Voters don't like that!" as if leading Democrats and Republicans are unaware of this information. The issue is that they can't do anything about it. ... Most people don't actually want to sift through the ranks of random governors and senators, identify which ones suit the moment, go volunteer for their campaigns, give them money, etc. What they want is strong parties to do that work and present them with appealing nominees. Instead, everyone is miserable, and it risks discrediting democracy.

Heebie's take: I have just a second to post, so I can't yet wow you with my fascinating take.

I have an old friend who now lives in Israel, and they are very much mired in their own grief over October 7th, and unsympathetic to the broader picture. Their posts on the war tend to be along the lines of "The media is lying to you, if Hamas wanted the war to end, they could release the hostages, here are the atrocities from October 7th, etc."

I would never engage with them on this, because fuck no, that sounds awful. But I do play out conversations in my head with them, and I end up going in circles, where a lot of it centers on the bit, "if Hamas wanted the war to end, they could release the hostages."

First, I am not in any way diminishing the scale of murder and destruction that Bibi et al are committing. Please let's take it as a given that the army doing the murdering is responsible for the murdering. (Don't scold me for not realizing the scope of the horror, right?)

So here's the part where there's a kernel of truth: it is true that Hamas could release the rest of hostages and (probably?) end the war. In any serious writing, Hamas's role is generally understood and acknowledged. But in the simpler ceasefire rhetoric that I see locally - the kind of rhetoric that my friend is responding to - Hamas does often get treated as a passive actor. Usually there's a qualifier about the terror of October 7th, but it's not exactly attributed to Hamas as an ongoing player that continues to hold hostages and taunt Israel, and is more than willing to sacrifice Palestinians.

In my mental conversations with my friend, I find it difficult to mete out the right amount of responsibility to the little guy who is determined to provoke the bigger guy into bombing the shit out of the little guy.

(I do still feel nervous about posting this and provoking a big fight. Deep breath.)

Somehow, despite Twitter's sad and manifest decline, I've recently found what might be the best account I've ever followed. This is such a perfect match between the platform and this person's amazing talent.

We're having severe-ish weather, which caused me to learn that there are school districts in the San Antonio metro area which do not celebrate MLK day (because they had to cancel school or have weather delays). How depressing.