EMBRACING THE RED DOT SIGHT.

HMM: Finally Tesla Megapacks and Energy is Delivering.

BELIEVABLE: Exercise might help prevent nerve damage from chemotherapy.

COLOR ME UNDERWHELMED: FDA approves new drug to treat Alzheimer’s disease. “In clinical trials, donanemab (Kisunla) modestly slowed the pace of thinking declines among patients in the early stages of the memory-robbing disease. But it also carried significant safety risks, including swelling and bleeding in the brain.”

Drugs for clearing amyloid plaques seem iffy, given the shaky foundation for amyloid plaques as a cause.

HMM: Study warns of possible bacteria in tattoo inks.

CDR SALAMANDER: The Most Essential Battle of the Russo-Ukrainian War. . . will be the one over the Lessons Learned.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: New ‘Anarchy U’ film showcases violence, secrecy at pro-Palestinian UCLA encampment.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Lawsuit: Northwestern Law School Is Biased Against White Men In Faculty Hiring. “The suit argues that racial and gender preferences at Northwestern’s law school are widespread and constitute wholesale discrimination against better qualified White men.”

THEY’RE CONSTANTLY HAVING “COME TO JESUS” MOMENTS, BUT THEY NEVER ACTUALLY COME TO JESUS:

My profession having a “come to Jesus moment” about the decision many made to not try to get the story of Biden’s decline because they were afraid of being accused of helping to elect President Trump.
Team Biden played many of you easily because they knew your weak spot. https://t.co/R8jMvStsHm

— ZitoSalena (@ZitoSalena) July 2, 2024

ELIZABETH PRICE FOLEY & DAVID RIVKIN: America Depends on Presidential Immunity: Rejecting Trump’s claim would have meant a weaker government and a more politicized justice system.

n Federalist No. 70, Alexander Hamilton explained that the executive branch is embodied in a single person, the president, to avoid the “habitual feebleness and dilatoriness” inherent in multimember bodies like Congress. A unitary president ensures vigor in the exercise of executive power for the benefit of the nation. “A feeble executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government.”

The Trump opinion acknowledged these truths and built on Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), which recognized presidential immunity from civil lawsuits predicated on official acts. In that case, Justice Lewis Powell wrote that such immunity is mandated by the president’s “unique position” and “rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers.” Lawsuits “could distract a President from his public duties, to the detriment of not only the President and his office but also the Nation that the Presidency was designed to serve.”

As Chief Justice John Roberts noted in Trump, that’s even more true of criminal charges. Given “the peculiar public opprobrium that attaches to criminal proceedings,” they “are plainly more likely to distort Presidential decisionmaking than the potential payment of civil damages.” Without immunity, “a President inclined to take one course of action based on the public interest may instead opt for another, apprehensive that criminal penalties may befall him upon his departure from office.” Immunity is therefore crucial to protect the independence of the executive branch. But the immunity the court recognized isn’t without limit.

The president enjoys absolute immunity for acts undertaken within his exclusive power, as granted by the Constitution. “Once it is determined that the President acted within the scope of his exclusive authority,” the court declared, “his discretion in exercising such authority cannot be subject to further judicial examination.” One of the allegations against Mr. Trump is that he attempted to convince the Justice Department to investigate election fraud. Because the president has ultimate authority over the Justice Department, the high court held that Mr. Trump is absolutely immune from charges relating to his interactions with it.

For acts “within the outer perimeter” of the president’s official responsibility, the justices held, there is “at least a presumptive immunity.” The president has a broad array of “discretionary responsibilities” that aren’t exclusively his. “At a minimum,” the court held, “the President must . . . be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose ‘no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’ ” . . .

At the same time, the justices made clear that the president has no immunity from prosecution for private acts. That’s consistent with Clinton v. Jones (1997), which denied Bill Clinton’s claim of immunity in a lawsuit alleging sexual harassment during his time as Arkansas governor. Presidents aren’t “above the law”; they are immune from civil lawsuit or criminal prosecution only for actions undertaken pursuant to the highest law, the Constitution.

The court also wisely rejected special counsel Jack Smith’s argument that determining whether acts are official and therefore immune can wait until after the trial. Presidential immunity “must be addressed at the outset of a proceeding,” the court held, because the mere “possibility of an extended proceeding” may reduce the presidency’s vigor. The justices observed that “we do not ordinarily decline to decide significant constitutional questions based on the Government’s promises of good faith.”

Without immunity and prompt pretrial determination thereof, former presidents could face years of court proceedings fighting novel charges predicated on public speeches; negotiations with state, foreign or congressional leaders; or executive orders lacking clear statutory authorization such as vaccine mandates, eviction moratoriums or actions opening the border. Clever prosecutors could conjure up indictments based on opaque criminal statutes such as conspiracy against rights, conspiracy to defraud the U.S., obstruction of justice, mail or wire fraud, racketeering, and false statements or misrepresentations.

If you don’t like this decision, amend the Constitution. Personally, I think any official immunities should come from legislation, not from judicial decisions. But that’s not the world we live in.

HOW MUCH DIFFERENCE DO RUNNING MATES MAKE IN GENERAL? Oh: Nobody cares who Trump picks for running mate. “Republicans and Democrats were nearly identical in telling Rasmussen Reports that Trump’s pick won’t make ‘much of a difference’ on Election Day.”

LOSERS ON PARADE: Meet the Rich Kids, Professors, and Activists Arrested at Columbia in April.

DAVID BERNSTEIN: “One of my pet peeves is the way the modern academic left insists on seeing all ethnic and racial conflict through the lens of the American black-white racial dynamic.”

DON SURBER: Eagleton is Kamala’s hope: He’s why Democrats shouldn’t pass her over if FJB quits.

OPEN THREAD: It’s all for you.

ALIENS: Private Odysseus moon lander reveals which Earth ‘technosignatures’ aliens might see.

RONALD REAGAN WARNED US OF THIS: Trees Have Become a Hidden Source of Air Pollution in Los Angeles.

MICROBIOME NEWS: Breakthrough Study Links Gut Bacteria to Food Addiction and Obesity.

ANDY KESSLER: The Tyranny of Today’s Tipping: When did it become expected to shell out a 25% gratuity for soggy takeout fries?

The screen reads: “Add a tip: 18%. 20%. 25%.” For a takeout sack of burgers and soggy fries? C’mon. It takes extra taps to change it to 10% or zero. Instead, we sheepishly tip and feel resentful. Using Internal Revenue Service data, I extrapolate that tipping has almost doubled since 2013, when San Francisco-based Square turned iPads into cash registers with suggested tips.

It’s the American way to show gratitude for a job well done, but tipping has gotten out of hand. It’s become expected. Even required. A Mountain View, Calif., restaurant had a line on its bills: “For parties of 1 or larger, a 18% gratuity is applied automatically.” . . .

One study reveals that we tip because it’s a “social norm,” to “show gratitude,” and to “avoid feeling guilty.” Those answers ring true, but reasons also include the expectation of “poor future service if I don’t tip,” and that “the waiter may yell at me.” Those feel even truer. . . .

I recently hailed a Waymo car in San Francisco and didn’t tip the driver—because there wasn’t one, a gentle reminder that automation often solves pricing problems. Americans don’t hate tipping. We hate that it’s expected, that you’re labeled a tightwad if you don’t tip. How do we get back to tipping being optional? For great service. For promptitude. Not for soggy takeout fries.

I’m a generous tipper, but tipping retail cashiers — which is what Starbucks baristas are — is a bit much. I’ll stick a dollar in the jar, but 25% automatically added as an “option”? Another reason to pay cash. And all companies are doing here is shifting wage expenses to customers.

I DON’T CARE ENOUGH: Fuck the Modern NBA.

NEWS YOU CAN USE: 10mm vs. .40 S&W: Similarities, Differences and Uses.

THE NEW SPACE RACE: China Discovers Graphene on the Moon.

BEATS A SLEEP STUDY: Blood test can help predict risk of obstructive sleep apnea.

THE NEW SPACE RACE: University of Michigan wins NASA’s lunar lander challenge award.

THAT WILL WORK WELL: Americans show growing interest in microdosing psychedelics.