'Fascism feasts on violence'

'The gunman and the would-be dictator'

David Frum at The Atlantic

Donald Trump's attempted assassination is a "horror and an outrage," says David Frum. But it is "sadly incorrect to say, as so many have, that political violence 'has no place' in American society." Trump and his supporters "envision a new place for violence as their defining political message in the 2024 election," and the former president himself "will be the martyr in chief, his own blood the basis for his bid for power and vengeance."

Read more

'Amtrak's failures are wired into the system'

Justin Fox at Bloomberg

While Amtrak is "finally making progress unstopping its Northeast Corridor tunnel and bridge bottlenecks, the electrical system is falling apart," says Justin Fox. This "probably has something to do with politicians' preference for big, tangible projects over largely invisible ones." It is "also fair to say that Amtrak hasn't always been the best-managed of organizations." For Amtrak to run smoothly, it needs the "public and politicians to get excited" about fixing it.

Read more

'The Secret Service failed Saturday. America deserves to know why.'

Frank Figliuzzi at MSNBC

You would be "hard-pressed to find a Secret Service agent who would claim" that Trump's shooting "was anything other than a failure," says Frank Figliuzzi. There "may have been a case of mixed assignment of responsibilities," which "makes for a kind of 'too many cooks spoil the broth' scenario." We "need to figure out if the Service is stretched so thin that it can't simultaneously address multiple major events without a risky overreliance on local police."

Read more

'The end of Chevron deference is no game-changer. Here's why.'

Satya Marar at The Hill

The Supreme Court ruling "undercutting the executive state's ability to regulate Americans' lives and businesses has been celebrated by conservatives," but "in reality, the end of so-called 'Chevron deference' changes little," says Satya Marar. The court "now holds that judges must independently interpret the law," meaning that agencies and bureaucrats must now work harder to persuade courts that they have applied the law correctly." But this still "won't stop courts from considering agencies' interpretations of legal ambiguities."

Read more