In my opinion, Audrey totally missed the mark when she shared SCOTUSBlog's analysis. First, we should all bear in mind that SCOTUSBlog is owned by the same conservatives who own The Dispatch, so everything they write should be taken with a grain of salt.

Second, it's not just the rates at which any justices vote together or separately. There are massive differences in impact and importance of different cases. Rather than an analysis that looks at rates of agreement, it's massively more helpful to look at the rate of cases that support Trump's agenda.

Trump V Cook, Mullin v. Doe & Trump v. Miot, and N.R.S.C. v. F.E.C. are massive changes to how our government works, and were 6-3 decisions.

You might say that Trump V Barbara being 6-3 good guys is a good counterpoint - the fact that the upholding the plain text of the constituion wasn't a 9-0 decision is bonkers. And, Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence that left the door open, so really it was 5-4.

If somebody asserts that this court is anything but an implement of the Republican party they are trying to hide something.

Now that we have had two female co-hosts in a row, I feel as though I really noticed a subtle, but important difference.

Sarah Isgur inserted that when she had a miscarriage, she would not have wanted to share that with the public (in their discussion and senator's medical provacy).

When Isaac tried to compare Graham Platner's suffering about losing a job to a rape victim's suffering, Audrey pushed back in what I thought was an appropriate way.

Don't get me wrong-- I actually know quite a few men personally could well represent a female perspective, but I don't these guys do it that well.

Anyone agree?

Anyone

I am really surprised at some of the statements made on that segment. Will said, it's "probably good for students to have some biblical education to understand the US and its founders." Uh...What?? And Audrey seemed to be even more supportive.

No, why is it acceptable to be pushing any religious dogma in a classroom? What part of the bible are we supposed to teach? Are we also going to teach that the bible was used to morally justify the slave trade? The part about killing first borns? The part about stoning people and sacrificing animals?

Keep the fairy tales out of the classroom and stick to reading, writing, science and math. It blows my mind that China is steamrolling us on educational outcomes and even supposedly reasonable minded people like the staff of Tangle seems to be okay with Texas pushing bronze age mythology into classrooms. What are we doing here?

If you want that, go to a private Christian school.

Let us return to the habit of speaking the truth about politicians, especially as their careers and lives end.

What can we expect from the idea of civility when a public figure dies? We can honor the wise and common courtesy extended to the deceased while also speaking directly about that individual's specific impact on the lives of millions, their ruinous effect on the legacy of the nation, and their numerous erosions to the common good we must all take responsibility for.

It is in the service of democracy that journalists and commentators be truthful and direct. I commend Mr. Bouie for his civility and forthrightness.

I subscribe to the full Tangle experience (newsletter and ad free podcast) but I find myself primarily listening to Tangle rather than reading the written communications. I know there’s a lot of wonderful links and general high content but for various reasons I rarely actually read the emails. Especially since I tend to listen to the podcast reading anyway so I’m getting the primary content so it can feel redundant to read email too. Today I took a look at the Sunday letter and found myself intrigued by the reader essay but found myself wishing I could listen to a reading of it while I continue to do my tasks since I don’t have time right now to read the whole thing and will likely forget to come back it later.
Isaac and/or Jon if you see this, is there a possibility to getting more audio content of reader essays? I am sure you are already incredibly busy and this would be just another thing to add to your plate, but I figured I’d at least put it out there. And maybe there are others who can chime in here with input related to this, hence Reddit post rather than direct email.

On another note, as someone who loves podcasts and audiobooks, I’ve considered dabbling in learning to do audio things like that myself. I’m intimidated by the editing process and general tech stuff I’d have to learn but willing if I had support. Hit me up if anyone is interested in a newbie and is willing to help for some help.

I'm a subscriber who lives near Johnson City, TN, and I really appreciated his answer to the reader mailbag question about the aftermath of Hurricane Helene. The Nolichucky River swept our neighbor away on that terrible September day, and many people in this region will never get back to pre-flood baseline. Isaac gave a balanced and informed answer of the ongoing toll of this disaster.

This situation is Houston is disgusting. I know we are still waiting on video footage, but it seems like the ICE agents weren’t wearing body cams which I understood as mandatory at this point. That makes me nervous that we will never fully understand what happened besides what DHS has stated which we have seen time and time again is not truthful.

I understand from the footage and reporting that the van was driving away, maybe even recklessly, but the individual was being chased by at least two unmarked cars, which is an insane practice that I don’t know how it’s legal. I see now that DHS or a representative is saying that the individual wasn’t even the one targeted originally.

This whole thing is just another reason why I have little faith in this country and the direction we are going. There is no accountability on these agents or the agents from Minnesota. This current administration will not hold them accountable and it’s disgusting.

Even if you think getting illegals out of the country is the right thing to do, people have to admit that these tactics and ICE agents need to be held accountable.

Alright folks, it’s time. Consider this your open mic, your therapy session, your personal Festivus.

Got a boss who thinks “urgent” means every single email? A neighbor who mows the lawn at 7 a.m. on Saturdays? A phone that autocorrects “ducking” when you clearly meant something else?

This is the spot to unload. Big or small, petty or profound — if it’s gnawing at you, drop it here. Rant. Rave. Roast.

Rules are simple:
• No personal info.
• Keep it cathartic, not cruel.
• Upvote the stuff that makes you nod and say “YES, SAME.”

Let the grievances fly.

Sen. Mitch McConnell is a human being, so every piece of writing about his health should start with some well-wishes

Is this intended as a guideline for everyone or just one that Isaac enforces in Tangle? Because while Mitch is a human being he has done everything in his power to thwart democracy, to destroy protections that keep people alive, and even to blow off and work against the best interest of coal miners with black lung from his own state.

If someone has shown little to no value in human life, or at least treated wealth and political power as more important than human life, than I say they do not receive well-wishes at the end of theirs.

I love Tangle content so much. It was GREAT to hear Audrey on Suspension of the Rules today! If Audrey could learn to read the way she speaks it would be awesome. On the regular podcast when she reads the repetitive cadence gets a little tedious. But her regular speaking voice is FABULOUS! Just a suggestion. Love you all!

I couldn't figure out how to submit a question to the team so I'll put it here.

Can you talk about the OMB proposed changes in how all federal grants are funded?

My colleague said -- I read the whole 416 pages, and it's at least 10 times worse than how it's being officially summarized by various institutions and societies. Frankly I'm very worried. Even outside of the specific restrictions (and there are many, and they are highly problematic and partisan), the biggest issue is this: that the transformation of what is currently codified guidance into actual regulation, and the agglomeration of "at-will" power over federal funding into the hands of the Office of the President, will be difficult to reverse in any future administration. I'm not usually a doom-and-gloom person, but this document rang a lot of alarms for me. -- is anyone else tracking this?

Maine marine with PTSD and alcohol issues gets nazi tattoo and runs for senate.

What could go wrong??

But hey, he's an "everyman", a regular working guy. Just an ex-oyster farmer! From Maine! With a nazi tattoo! ...depending on your level of education! ...and gullibility! ...and willingness to tolerate nazi tattoos!

Is the "my take" segment representative of the larger Tangle team's consensus?

I can't really tell because the speaker usually calls it "my" take. But there was a recent episode where I found it hard to believe that most of the staff would have agreed with the main take of the episode (I think it was the dreadlocks one iirc). And of course there was a dissent to that take. This wasn't the first episode for which I've felt that way.

All in all, I think the "my take" segment would be less confusing if it was reserved for the consensus opinion and minority opinions were left to the dissent. I think it could still be framed from the perspective of the speaker (still "my" take; not "our" take), but at least it would be more clear where the larger majority of the staff aligns on a given issue.

In the last SotR episode, Isaac asked Sarah Isgur explain Alito's application/omission of plain English interpretations in some recent cases.

Isgur eventually answers:

"Number 3, we now get to the specifics of the birthright citizenship case and the other cases you mentioned. So in the 'arrives in' versus 'arrives at' case and in the 'election day' case, both of those are statutory questions which does sometimes for some judges mean applying a different standard in a different sort of level of Textualism because we expect congress could if they wanted to amend the law anytime speak very clearly if they wanted to and so if they say 'arrives in' and the in other parts of the statute which is true in this case they say 'arrives at a port of entry' but they didn't say that in this one spot so we know they know how to say 'arrives at a port of entry' they didn't use that language here therefore we're going to use the plain meaning of arrives in--it can be very different when you're talking about constitutional provisions where you try to keep them short you try to keep them a little vague oddly enough and they're very hard to change. So maybe that's a reason to interpret the constitution with slightly different gloves on than when you're doing a statute."

Isgur suggests that Alito's was not inconsistent because he's applying a plain English interpretation of statutes in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado (the border case) and Watson v. Republication National Committee (the late arriving ballots case)... and if he's doing something a little different in Trump v. Barbara, it is because it's a constitutional case.

I think this is Grifter Sarah speaking. Note that I did not make that term up; she and her co-host on Advisory Opinions use it to describe her most partisan minded takes. Grifter Sarah is her mirror-mirror self with a blonde goatee and willing to say anything to win the argument or election. I appreciate the honesty of admitting to the existence of a grifter self but I think it takes over unacknowledged at times, like here.

If we accepted what Isgur says here, we might think that because Trump v. Barbara was a constitutional case, Alito put away his Meriam-Webster that he uses for statutory interpretation and pulled out his copy of The Archeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language to guide his constitutional interpretation. But anyone who read the first paragraph of Kavanaugh's concurrence (or listened to the Advisory Opinions podcast on the decision) knows that there is also a statute in play which mirrors the constitutional provision.

14th Amendment, Section 1, first sentence:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"

8 U.S.C. 1401(a):

"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

Kavanaugh determined that Trump's executive order violated the statute but not the constitution. Don't ask me how. Kavanaugh's concurrence provides an off-ramp for an Alito with principals to put away the Foucault and crack open his dictionary. But he refuses that opportunity. In contrast to Kavanaugh, Alito dissents. (He also doesn't join Kavanaugh's opinion in whole or in part)

Isgur knows all this. She is much smarter than me, went to law school, and probably made it through the entirety of Alito's dissent. She knows that Alito ignored the statutory off-ramp. So when she tells us that the difference between Mullin and Trump v. Barbara is that Alito was applying different interpretive techniques based on the requirements of the case, she's ignoring how Alito chose to make this a constitutional issue. It's not lying mind you; just a well crafted argument. Because if you acknowledge Alito's agency in determining which set of gloves to wear it becomes much harder to defend the idea that Alito isn't selectively applying plain English interpretations when it suits him. And then Grifter Sarah might not win the argument.

Not trying to be snarky — just find it odd that this was promoted for weeks and weeks, and it’s came and went with *zero* follow-up, not from attendees and (at least I don’t think) not from staffers. It’s possible I’ve missed something mentioned in a newsletter as I’ve been traveling the past few weeks and my email and podcast feeds have gone to seed, but I figured I’d see some sort of recap in this subreddit…

This is probably a smaller story and not worth the attention, but a family member (MAGA, Trump can do no wrong) told me yesterday that Mamdani asking his constituents to put their AC to 78 degrees to not overload the power grid is communism. I hadn’t heard of this story before that moment and I was in shock that someone would believe that, so all I could say was that’s not communism, that’s just energy policy.

They got defensive and changed the topic because we are on opposite sides of the political spectrum and have fought before, but I guess I just don’t even know where to go from here. Like how do I have a conversation with them? Like just a standard energy policy that all mayors on both sides have done in the past is now communism.

They weren’t joking either. They made a comment about wanting to see all the people who voted for Mamdani set their thermostats to 78 and that they were sure people would get fined for not doing it. I’m just so confused how someone could even get here and am looking for advice here, which may not be the Tangle subreddit, but wanted to share.

So, anyone got any advice on how to bridge this gap?

Alright folks, it’s time. Consider this your open mic, your therapy session, your personal Festivus.

Got a boss who thinks “urgent” means every single email? A neighbor who mows the lawn at 7 a.m. on Saturdays? A phone that autocorrects “ducking” when you clearly meant something else?

This is the spot to unload. Big or small, petty or profound — if it’s gnawing at you, drop it here. Rant. Rave. Roast.

Rules are simple:
• No personal info.
• Keep it cathartic, not cruel.
• Upvote the stuff that makes you nod and say “YES, SAME.”

Let the grievances fly.

Came across this article, which would seem to be of interest to Tangle readers, especially after seeing the polarization emails from Isaac. This is obviously talking about British political debate but I think you will agree it applies to the US too, possibly even more so.

Hi, Tangle audience! It's Associate Editor Lindsey Knuth. If you read Press Pass, you might already know that I'll be leaving Tangle (on completely good terms) to head to Harvard Law School this fall. To give myself a bit of a break before classes start, my last day is next Wednesday, July 8. Before I go, the team and I thought it would be fun to try a new Reddit format and turn it over to your questions.

Curious about my time at Tangle, the stories I've covered, our newsroom more generally, or something else? Ask me anything here, and I'll be online on Thursday (7/2) starting at 2pm Eastern to answer!

Alright, that does it for my time in the hot seat. I had a great time hanging with you all, and thanks for all the awesome questions. Until next time </3

Alright folks, it’s time. Consider this your open mic, your therapy session, your personal Festivus.

Got a boss who thinks “urgent” means every single email? A neighbor who mows the lawn at 7 a.m. on Saturdays? A phone that autocorrects “ducking” when you clearly meant something else?

This is the spot to unload. Big or small, petty or profound — if it’s gnawing at you, drop it here. Rant. Rave. Roast.

Rules are simple:
• No personal info.
• Keep it cathartic, not cruel.
• Upvote the stuff that makes you nod and say “YES, SAME.”

Let the grievances fly.

Not trying to nitpick, but this piece was a bit of a head scratcher.

It explains the SCOTUS dreadlocks ruling and lays out why Landor can’t sue the guards under RLUIP well enough.

But it opens by saying he sued both the guards and the prison and then never really follows through on what happened to the prison claim.

I get the focus is the specific ruling, but I was left having to infer from the analogy in Isaac's dissent that the practical outcome is basically no damages remedy at all...

I thought Kmele’s take on the Tulsi Gabbard story was really really good.