SCOTUS roundup briefs

The Trump immunity ruling is everything wrong about today's SCOTUS. It's partisan; it pretends not to be partisan; it takes an initial bite of the apple while pretending that it won't take more bites when the case comes back; and that's just for starters.

I think the delay was not only to put this at the end, but also to figure out how exactly to craft the decision with all the particulars above. 

Beyond that, the 1970s Office of Legal Counsel's ruling that presidents couldn't be indicted? Constitutionally nugatory, as I said long ago (during the Mueller report, when Ball-less Bob failed). 

In light of that, this current Supreme Court ruling has been teed up for 50 years, just waiting for the next Nixonian or worse president to come along.

Or, 55 years, as Joyce Alene says, essentially, that absolute immunity for constitutionally prescribed acts creates Bill Douglas-like shadows and penumbras for lesser levels and degrees of immunity. Alternet has a summary of her take, and general left-liberal, but not leftist, reaction.

That said?

The biggest problem with the Trump immunity ruling itself starts with the whole "originalism" idea. "The Federalist" is a one-sided document. Many of the Philadelphia 1787 White men who signed off on, and physically signed, the constitution, did not have the same interpretations of the document as Hamilton, Madison and Jay. The idea that an "energetic" executive was desired is belied by the actual governance of the U.S. through the time of Andrew Jackson, with the lead-up to that being the setting for Jackson himself being called "King Andrew."

That said, the Blind Umpire et al selectively read "The Federalist" anyway.

3. In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the President would be "liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law." This, Hamilton wrote is the key distinction between the "King of England," who was "sacred and invulnerable," and the "President of…

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) July 2, 2024

There you go. Shocking, I know. Selective reading?

Let us not forget that Henry Clay got the Senate to officially censure Jackson.

Let us also not forget the exclusion of non-Whites and non-males. Well did William Lloyd Garrison call it a "covenant with death." Sadly, even Frederick Douglass internalized the over-veneration of the constitution. One will notice here the lowercasing of the word "constitution."

And, per the "teed up"? The Nine have been cutting blank and semi-blank checks for executive authority since, oh, probably since Reagan's time and definitely since Shrub Bush's time. And, Democrats' failure to impeach Reagan over Iran-Contra added to this.

And, that's why this non-librul leftist does NOT "revere" the constitution.

==

Second, contra the wingers, SCOTUS did NOT say in Murthy that Team Biden can coerce social media. Rather, it DID say that plaintiffs lack standing. The is the latest of several cases this year where the court has said the Fifth Circuit has simply gotten wrong, and egregiously wrong in most cases, the issue of standing. The 6-3 opinion also said that no actual injuries had been shown, nor was it shown that the social media content moderation in the particular cases was due to government coercion.

I don't totally agree with that last one, and have said so here before.

That said, I do agree with SCOTUS at a minimum sending the two Net Choice cases back to lower courts. Because it was the plaintiff, unlike Murthy, there was no standing issue. But, rather than overturn the lower courts and set some sort of standard for what governments can't do, the court punted that back to lower courts without guidance beyond saying Net Choice improperly framed its argument.

==

And, was this a Dobbs-type leak? SCOTUS's opinion allowing the federal government to let ER doctors, at least in Idaho, perform emergency abortions, was accidentally posted online before being hauled down. It's not a ruling for the Biden Administration; rather, it's a ruling for its injunction. The Notorious KBJ noted that. Unfortunately, nobody at Bloomberg, who first noted it, did a copy-paste of web information, or a download of the PDF, if the full opinion was indeed posted. As it turns out, the actual was basically the same as the leaked opinion, so, if deliberate, nobody was swayed.

Slate notes that the leaked document indicates that, long term, there's support for Idaho's stance, and even suggests that simply ruling on the stay punts the final ruling past the November election calendar.

==

Is criminalizing homelessness, with many other locales surely primed to follow Grants Pass now, really going to stop homelessness? (I picture the Umpire saying, "The only way to stop homelessness is for people to stop being homeless.") Of course not. That said, if the third arrest results in 30 days in jail, max, upon conviction, in Grants Pass, what does the city do when it runs out of jail room?

Answer: Having grown up in Gallup, New Mexico, and seeing the sad Sunday morning, and sometimes Monday morning, parade from the drunk tank at the Gallup city jail that was right across the "Perkie" from our house, these people aren't being held 30 days.

==

Without officially gutting Chevron, the SEC ruling continued to erode it at the edges.

And then, right after that, the court finished the job. Details of Loper here. On Twitter, as far as deference to expert agencies or lack thereof now, somebody noted Gorsuch not knowing the difference between nitrogen oxide pollutants and nitrous oxide laughing gas. That was in the case involving EPA's "good neighbor rule," which of course was also gutted. A whole set of rulings of last week tipped SCOTUS' hand before the shiv was wielded.

Next? OSHA is a probable target. And, per the Corner Post case, a bunch of rich wingnuts can now deliberately launch a start-up shell business just for the purpose of challenging federal regulations.

==

The Sackler ruling was, I think, correct. Not just re the Sacklers, but per the general idea.

==

Very good, on the gunz front, after the ruling allowing bump stocks? The court has, after affirming that states can prevent people with domestic abuse issues from owning guns, that in light of that, it will reject challenges to state laws on felons being barred from guns, Illinois' ban on assault weapons and more. It's not perfect; it continues a pattern of this court of ducking many issues, but in this case, it told lower courts to rehear the cases in light of the Rahimi decision.

==

As far as how bad each is? Really, only dyed-in-the-wool Blue Anon think the Trump immunity ruling is the worst. In actuality, it's Loper, especially when seen in conjunction with Corner Post, that's the worst. Hands down, or hands semi-down, at least.

Texas Progressives talk Uvalde, more

Former Uvalde ISD police chief Pete Arredondo has been indicted for his role, or failed role, in the mass shooting two years ago. Will DPS head Steve McCraw, who testified to the still-convened grand jury, have to face the music?

Russell Gold says that, with the wide variety of THCa products that eventually deliver Delta-9, Texas has essentially legalized marijuana, because hemp sellers are going way over state and federal limits and the state is way behind on testing.

Doug Lewin talks about the electric grid.

Some splinter-sized Israeli settler nutbars want to make southern Lebanon the next West Bank.

More than 100 Texas counties, including mine, do not have a federally required hazard mitigation plan. In the wake of the East Palestine train disaster, and its possible happenings in my county, that alone is reason to have one.

Off the Kuff looks at the state of abortion in Texas two years after Dobbs, and notes that the EMTALA decision was not a victory.

In two separate criminal justice issues, Socratic Gadfly first talks about the release of Julian Assange, and then looks at PRO Gainesville throwing a Hail Mary to the Supreme Court, and the ACLU role in that.

Neil at the Houston Democracy Project said blathers about be certain to know how to contact friends & allies in a political crisis. You won’t be able to rely on big social media platforms. (That's your second strike or beyond, Neil; almost didn't run it.) 

 The Houston Press profiles new Sen. Molly Cook.  

Frank Strong looks at how the discourse over library books has curdled. 

 Law Dork warns of our imperial SCOTUS. 

 The Dallas Observer previews what you'll be eating at the State Fair this fall.

Texas Progressives talk prez debate as Kuff tries to hide

Well, THIS corner of Texas Progressives does, even if nobody else will.

Boy, was the June 27 debate a clusterfuck for Biden and Democrats. So much so that Kuff had three posts the next morning and none of them about the debate. The denialism continued with three more on Saturday, and three more before his link dump on Sunday. Yeah, Kuff focuses on Texas politics, and on blog posts with long extracts, probably violating fair use law, from the original sources, and little from his own work. But, still, surely, he could have found something with a Texas take.

Like this from the Trib.

State Rep. Ron Reynolds, a Missouri City Democrat who will be a delegate at the Democratic National Convention, called for Vice President Kamala Harris to replace Biden as the nominee. Reynolds, who chairs the Texas Legislative Black Caucus, wrote on social media that he was "VERY disturbed" by the debate and shared a screenshot of an op-ed headline that argued Biden's "mental capacity is an election issue."

And, including Texas Dems' worry about downballot races. 

Surely, Kuff could have written about that.

“I think that if you are a down-ballot candidate in a swing area, that candidate's responsibility for turnout becomes even bigger than it was before yesterday,” said Ed Espinoza, a Democratic strategist who previously oversaw the progressive group Progress Texas. “You're gonna need an extra push.”

Of course, Kuff wasn't alone in chosing not to. ConservaDem Colin Allred was just as chickenshit:

Allred’s campaign and social media was silent throughout the debate. The Dallas Democrat declined to comment after leaving the U.S. House chamber on Friday, saying he was still “processing” the debate.

Others split the diff by noting that Biden hasn't focused on Texas much anyway. 

That piece already has the Julian Castro tweet that quickly made the rounds of Twitter by Friday noon.

And chose not to.

Speaking of Julian Castro? VD Hooks has more on him at the Monthly, calling him, in essence, prescient. Here's the hot take:

In 2019, Castro ran in the Democratic primary for president. By September his campaign was teetering and needed a miracle. Biden, the front-runner, looked unsteady, and many thought he was coasting on name recognition. Castro elected to give him a body check. At a debate that month, he thought he caught Biden misstating aspects of his health care plan, and he pounced. “Are you forgetting already what you said just two minutes ago?” he said. There was audible shock in the audience. “I can’t believe that you said two minutes ago that they had to buy in, and now you’re saying they don’t have to buy in,” Castro said. Then: “You’re forgetting that?”

Was he actually right back then? Perhaps. No, probably. At a minimum, more right then than Ralph Nader is today, thinking that Hillary Clinton failed because she lacked some secret sauce that Biden had. Yes, Democrats in Wisconsin know she fucked up, if nothing else. That doesn't mean Biden was a genius, just that he was lucky that COVID-era Trump was his opponent.

My take here. That includes Sy Hersh repeating through anonymous sources what Castro said mildly last year and what Ralph refused to acknowledge when he jumped in Biden's lesser-evilism tank at that time last year.

That said, Chris, CD, Hooks is still VD Hooks; the Green-hater name-checks several other 2020 candidates but Bernie Sanders isn't one of them.

==

Texas third party candidates MAY FINALLY get relief from Texas law requiring them to pay the same fees as primary nominated duopoly candidates. But, that is a "may" and the "finally" is that the federal lawsuit on that won't happen until more than a year from now.

Prime ministerial and presidential news for the Fourth

British voters are at the polls as I type, which, serious news followers and readers of this site know. Results will not be available until late tonight, British time, if not Friday morning, but we all know Labour is going to win. The question is, the margin. I think they still have an angle for 500 seats, but 550 sounds ridiculous. Many voters wanting options will vote for other parties.

Update, 5 pm Central time, US: CNN says exit polls say 410 Labour, 131 Tories. Good. That's a LOT of people voting outside the box, even allowing for Scottish Nationalist Party seats. 

Update 7:30 p.m.: The Guardian says the LibDems may have picked up more than 60 seats. Meh; see below. The SNP supposedly has had a poor showing, but Nigel Farange's Reform UK reportedly has outperformed the Conservatives in a number of places, either seconds behind Labour or perhaps some firsts. As of 9 p.m., they have at least two seats.

I mean, Labour and the Tories are the same on Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Gaza. So are the LibDems, for that matter. So, that means Farange's nutters, Greens or smaller parties of the left or independent candidates. I'm curious what's going to happen there. With Labour, there's the question of how many marchers after New New Labour's Der Stramer vs old Corbynites will be in the division.

Also, per Twitter friend Rangzen, voting turnout was the lowest since Blair's original win, and around 60 percent. Remember that when Europeans, at least non-continental ones, attack Americans for not going to the polls.

==

Macron just got his hat handed to him Sunday in the first round of voting in France's snap election. Already, per that story, his management team is doing a Biden about how well they expect to do in the second round, etc.

It's almost surely headed to cohabitation, but, unlike the previous one 20 years ago, the further left and further right say that defense and foreign policy will NOT remain in the hands of the president. Translation? Different tack on Ukraine.

==

Jill Stein got federal matching funds. (Will she use it to buy more Exxon stock?) There is a twist that she can't get it until August, conveniently not until the duopoly conventions:

Just after emailing that our matching funds would soon be on the way, the FEC oddly sent a second email claiming no payments could be made until August, after the nominating conventions. (This is allegedly to allow the FEC to determine whether candidates will apply for matching funds for the general election.)

Yeah, that IS stupid.

==

But, the FEC is nowhere as stupid as Brainworm Bobby's stupidity.

==

And, will #DementiaJoe have a "good day" or "bad day" with George Stephanopoulos tomorrow in an interview that will now NOT just be excerpted on the evening news but run in its entirety tomorrow night? If it's a bad day, what excuse(s) will the White House have? If it's a good day, what claims of deepfaking or similar will MAGAts have?

"Biden withdrawing or not" becoming like "Chomsky dead or not"

Earlier today, in stories published less than 15 minutes apart, we first had, from the NYT:

Followed by Agence France-Press at Irish site RTE — and with different header and update, apparently via the NYT story, at Barron's:

Well, obviously both of these can't be true.

What we almost certainly have are dueling leakers, whether Biden White House staffers or family, or a mix, hitting dueling outlets, not so much because they're concerned about the future of the Democratic Party, or the future of democracy (dying in darkness along with the Washington Post), but the present of their status as first-tier insiders. This is the classic DC leaking game on steroids.

And, here's why:

Franklin Foer, who chronicled Biden’s first term in a book: “To his closest advisers, Joe Biden is a figure frozen in time…To admit his end is to provoke a crisis in their own professional life. If I’m not whispering in Biden’s ear, then what am I?”

There you go. (From the Counterpunch link below.)

And, yes, it reminded me of the rush to proclaim Chomsky dead two weeks ago, which left at least one alleged Chomsky insider with egg on his face.

Looking under the hood on this one, the NYT does NOT cite White House press spox Karine Jean-Pierre; the AFP does. The NYT cites a "key ally" in the lede; that's someone outside the White House. Probably not Pelosi, as the piece ends with saying they haven't spoken, though that could be a ruse. Schumer's also mentioned, so probably not him but see above. Or Dear Leader. Don't think it's Jill.

AFP does cite KJP for its denial. But then has a "senior Democratic operative" saying, along the lines of cover-ups, it's not the debate, it's the aftermath. Senior Dem operative could be the NYT's "key ally." And, would again make sense as Schumer if the NYT is running a ruse; he's NOT mentioned by name in the AFP article. Or, Dear Leader. Or one of Dear Leader's henchmen, like Axelrod. I don't think, riffing on Counterpunch, that it's Ted Kaufman.

Oh, speaking of Obama, or Obamas? Get a fucking clue and a fucking grip, Blue Anon. Michelle Obama ain't running.

Oh, and speaking of Obamas, Dear Leader side? If he could clear the field for Biden four years ago, by early spring, why couldn't he get Biden to honor the one-term idea and step out, four months ago this spring?

DC media insiders blame others for Biden's lack of imperial clothes

This tweet of mine summarizes where we're at. 

Nepo mommy / DC Media Insider Susan Glasser (& hubby, nepo dad / insider Peter Baker?) ignoring they either knew, or shld have known, abt Dementia Joe's problems long ago & never wrote about it, & now are saying,
"Where were all these folks?"
Hypocrisy alert .@NathanJRobinson https://t.co/Rt1vj7c3t0

— TheRealSocraticGadfly 🍉☢️🌻🌲 (@real_gadfly) July 2, 2024

I want the tweet I was quoting to show up, too, then it's explainer time:

This is such a key point. Where were all these folks when Biden’s decision to run again could have been headed off? When so many took a pass on thinking about the implications of someone asking for a second term that would have him serving to age 86… https://t.co/AHwglJOXyB

— Susan Glasser (@sbg1) July 1, 2024

There we are.

Susan Glasser, per her Twitter bio, is a staff writer for the New Yorker. Hubby Peter Baker is chief White House correspondent for the New York Times. Nepo baby offspring is Theo Baker, who has written for both mom's and dad's sites, as well as The Atlantic and elsewhere. He's a work, a tool, a knob, a piece of shit, and a bigger piece of shit on Zionism issues after Oct. 7, 2023.

And, as screengrabbed by someone else in response to Glasser, here's her running flak for Dementia Joe five months ago:

That's who these people are. And, they're unapologetic about wiping their hands, Pilate-like, while throwing people under the bus, or Roman chariot, or on a cross.

And, journos like Rick Perlstein, who should know better, expect me to not duopoly exit, or to never have done it 24 years ago, per yesterday's post? Really? Or, the likes of Will Bunch salute the Philadelphia Inquirer's call for Trump to resign while pretending Biden's new clothes are still splendiferous?

That said, the non-columnist types like Glasser and Baker will claim we're just here to report, not opine. Yeah? Well, your reporting didn't dig that deep, did it, and that was presumably willful, wasn't it?

The reality?

Tim Alberta gets it, and since he's a blue check with more than 280 words, I'm quoting the whole damn thing, with link here in case I misposted:

Okay folks. This stuff is no longer just nauseating; it's downright dangerous.

Joe Biden limped his way past a fractured 2020 primary field, the party finally coalescing around him because 1) he was the safest pick against an opponent they feared to an existential degree, and 2) his explicit promise to be the “bridge” (wink, wink) to the next generation of Democrats, several of whom flanked him on stage in Detroit as those words left his mouth and interpreted them exactly as Dem primary voters did.

Then he won in November by 43k votes against a spiraling, self-sabotaging incumbent who talked about injecting bleach as the country was falling apart.

Biden’s 2020 campaign was not some strategic masterstroke; there were no tactical or messaging breakthroughs that serve as blueprints for Poli Sci 101 lectures. The guy barely left his house between March and November! Sorry, but squeaking past the Bad News Bears doesn’t make you the ‘27 Yankees.

And yet the people around him have spent 3.5 years hailing the president as some sort of Jedi master: supernaturally tuned to the psyche of the electorate, singularly equipped to govern the country, uniquely able to save democracy from Donald Trump in 2024.

It’s nonsense.

Joe Biden is not Barack Obama. He's not Ronald Reagan. Heck, he's not even Bill Clinton. Spare us the lazy ahistorical comparisons and the romantic underdog narratives.

The truth is, the president is old, unpopular, and trapped by a dilemma of his own making. He picked a vice president in whom he’s lost confidence; is facing an opponent who insults him and his family in ways that his Irish pride can’t get beyond; and has surrounded himself with sycophants who refuse to tell him the truth.

Joe Biden has a distinguished record of public service. He has, in certain important ways, been an effective chief executive. But this mythologizing of the man is an insult to the public’s intelligence—and, in and of itself, a threat to our democratic institutions.

The reason for panic right now isn’t because a bunch of pundits and elites are oblivious to the thinking of regular people; it’s because those regular people always had a hunch the pundits and elites were lying to them about Biden’s capacities and now it’s been confirmed. https://t.co/IOfApjXDYw

— Tim Alberta (@TimAlberta) July 1, 2024

If only others would, too.

Yes, I also ran this yesterday, but, it needs to be read again.

Rick Perlstein fellates Josh Marshall

In his weekend link dump, Kuff fellates American Prospect fellating Zionist Josh Marshall. No, really; the word "Israel" is nowhere in the story. Perlstein also doesn't call Marshall out when he claims his audience is "left-wing," even though Marshall earlier admits that he's hated on the "socialist left." (A left-neoliberal audience is NOT "left-wing," Josh.

He's even more hated on the anti-Zionist left. That, in turn, is a mix of funny/ironic/sad because, in his Twitter feed, Perlstein himself seems at least moderately anti-Zionist, certainly on the current war. I don't know what Josh has written about the war itself, but before it, he was a full-on blank-check Zionist.

So, to riff on Perlstein? Yeah, he's had success, fiscally etc. So has Daily Kos, without Markos bigfooting the site in the foreground anymore.

Has either one had POLITICAL success other than as new font of online #BlueAnon tribalism?

Hell, no.

It's no wonder that Kuff, himself a BlueAnon tribalist who continues to maintain radio silence on Gaza, including Texas' own DPS busting up pro-Palestinian protestors at Texas universities, loved this piece. 

In response on Twitter, Perlstein gave me the old "this is the institutional framework, the duopoly is it" spiel on that. I told him that, as a member of the print media, I mentioned third parties from time to time. On Zionism, he admitted that "others were that bad, too."

As for Perlstein? Sadly, I thought he was better than this. And, I think I'll pass on his latest book when it comes it. It sounds like little more than a suaver Dan. Froomkin.

Philadelphia Inquirer swings and misses on presidential withdrawal editorial

The Inquirer, in a house editorial touted by the likes of its often-good, but BlueAnon, columnist Will Bunch (see here for my take on him as an author, and here for my take on him as specifically BlueAnon as a columnist), and Blue MAGA shiv slinger Yashar Ali (who's been quiet this year, maybe due to his financial problems), in the wake of Joe Biden's catastrophe at last week's debate, called for Donald Trump to withdraw from the Republican nomination contest.

And, that's the whiff.

Large chunks of the GOP, sotto voce, as well as the Never Trumpers who have spoken out, yes, want an alternative. But, pretending that many Democrats don't want an alternative to Biden is the whiff, part one. Why not call for BOTH to resign? 

Or, since you, I and the kitchen sink know that won't happen, why not call for a MASSIVE #DuopolyExit in the general election? That's the even bigger whiff.

I'm not a wingnut, but this is the dictionary entry for why wingnuts call the mainstream media biased.

And, yesterday, Ted Van Dyk at the WSJ got it non-partisanly right: "Biden Should Withdraw and So Should Trump." If you're wondering who he is? He's a Dem insider back to the days of working for Vice President Hubert Humphrey. As an advisor on the Hump's 1968 presidential campaign, he knows how things play out.

To put it bluntly? That Inquirer editorial was written BY BlueAnon FOR BlueAnon.

As for the Ralph Naders of the world pretending that Hillary Clinton was a clusterfuck as a campaigner? Yeah, Wisconsinites know. Does that make Dementia Joe a genius as a campaigner back in 2020?

Hell no. Ralph's a hypocrite:

Oh, to Ralph Nader trying to bag on Democrats?
Fuck you.
You officially jumped in the Joe Biden lesser evilism tank last year .@RalphNader 2/x https://t.co/aegPHOCmgH

— TheRealSocraticGadfly 🍉☢️🌻🌲 (@real_gadfly) July 1, 2024

And, per the next tweet in that thread, Julian Castro knew the reality five years ago.

Tim Alberta gets it, and since he's a blue check with more than 280 words, I'm quoting the whole damn thing, with link here in case I misposted:

Okay folks. This stuff is no longer just nauseating; it's downright dangerous.

Joe Biden limped his way past a fractured 2020 primary field, the party finally coalescing around him because 1) he was the safest pick against an opponent they feared to an existential degree, and 2) his explicit promise to be the “bridge” (wink, wink) to the next generation of Democrats, several of whom flanked him on stage in Detroit as those words left his mouth and interpreted them exactly as Dem primary voters did.

Then he won in November by 43k votes against a spiraling, self-sabotaging incumbent who talked about injecting bleach as the country was falling apart.

Biden’s 2020 campaign was not some strategic masterstroke; there were no tactical or messaging breakthroughs that serve as blueprints for Poli Sci 101 lectures. The guy barely left his house between March and November! Sorry, but squeaking past the Bad News Bears doesn’t make you the ‘27 Yankees.

And yet the people around him have spent 3.5 years hailing the president as some sort of Jedi master: supernaturally tuned to the psyche of the electorate, singularly equipped to govern the country, uniquely able to save democracy from Donald Trump in 2024.

It’s nonsense.

Joe Biden is not Barack Obama. He's not Ronald Reagan. Heck, he's not even Bill Clinton. Spare us the lazy ahistorical comparisons and the romantic underdog narratives.

The truth is, the president is old, unpopular, and trapped by a dilemma of his own making. He picked a vice president in whom he’s lost confidence; is facing an opponent who insults him and his family in ways that his Irish pride can’t get beyond; and has surrounded himself with sycophants who refuse to tell him the truth.

Joe Biden has a distinguished record of public service. He has, in certain important ways, been an effective chief executive. But this mythologizing of the man is an insult to the public’s intelligence—and, in and of itself, a threat to our democratic institutions.

The reason for panic right now isn’t because a bunch of pundits and elites are oblivious to the thinking of regular people; it’s because those regular people always had a hunch the pundits and elites were lying to them about Biden’s capacities and now it’s been confirmed. https://t.co/IOfApjXDYw

— Tim Alberta (@TimAlberta) July 1, 2024

If only others would, too.

The latest word on Thwaites Glacier's dangers

Per Grist, new papers show that the "cork in the bottle stopper" glacier of the Antarctic is being eroded in two different ways.

One is the "grounding line," where Antarctic glaciers move off land and to above the sea. That's being cut back, and also, metaphorically, lubricated better, so a warming glacier flows to sea faster.

The second is tidal pulsing. That's where tides lift the portion of a glacier over the ocean. But, this can also lift the portion back further, over land, and loosen it, and cause effects similar to that of grounding line changes.

And, Thwaites appears extra susceptible to this.