Assuming he actually did that, of course.

This is one of the main points. Whenever the death penalty comes up, proponents like to use what I call the “ultimate evil”. They propose some criminal that’s guilty of all the worst things they can throw at it (rape, child rape, murder, torture, etc). Then ask rhetorically if that person should be put to death. It’s easy to defeat that argument by asking, “After that person is dead, it’s uncovered that they were innocent (like actually innocent, not some technicality or only guilty of a lesser crime like manslaughter) and the victim of some elaborate framing by a massively corrupt system. Are you still happy with the outcome?” I’ll be one of the first to say there are people in the world that deserve to die. I can name the certain acts too that I’m sure many would agree with and maybe some that less agree with. But then who carries out the act? And are you willing to put 100% trust in them that they get it right every single time?

Reminds me of the graph of searches for Machine Gun Kelly spanning the release of Eminem’s Killshot. “Had to give you a career to destroy it.”

He was worried about hop ons.

That’s absolutely about security. Just not yours. There’s a lot of people whose financial security is at risk if they can’t sell that data.

Pretty sure that’s what any president does anymore with EOs from the other party.

Yup. Remember when target announced they wouldn’t pursue charges for theft under $25? That was essentially the “president” (ceo) telling the “field offices” (stores) not to go after those crimes. It doesn’t change the fact those are still crimes and a store could still go after it against the order.

While this case is fresh, the point of it being moot is that there are not ostensibly two sides in active disagreement that need the court to rule. Consider whenever you hear about old laws that aren’t enforced (like sodomy laws or race mixing). If it’s not being enforced, how do you get a lawsuit? There is no “injured party” or someone with a grievance. Who would defend it? You could bankrupt a district by continually challenging laws that aren’t being enforced. Now you might think you still want this case to go forward since it’s obviously unconstitutional, but what stops the “other” side from challenging whatever they don’t like whenever they want?

Thankfully Dick Cheney can no longer enter the chat.