Sign up for The Decision, a newsletter featuring our 2024 election coverage.
It was always unlikely that the Supreme Court, with its right-wing majority, would uphold Colorado’s ruling throwing Donald Trump off the ballot merely because he tried to execute a coup after losing the 2020 election. As the unanimous per curiam ruling issued Monday overturning Colorado’s decision suggests, a Court made up of nine liberal justices may not have done so either.

Sign up for The Decision, a newsletter featuring our 2024 election coverage.
Updated at 6 pm ET on March 4, 2024.
The United States is in a moment of democratic crisis, and the Supreme Court has no idea what to do.
Today, the Court held in Trump v. Anderson that Colorado cannot disqualify Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot as an insurrectionist, a decision that functionally dooms the existing efforts to bar Trump from the presidency under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Sign up for The Decision, a newsletter featuring our 2024 election coverage.
Not long ago, the idea that a former president—or a major-party presidential nominee—would face serious legal jeopardy was nearly unthinkable. Today, merely keeping track of the many cases against Donald Trump requires a law degree, a great deal of attention, or both.

With more than 100,000 people casting a vote against the incumbent president in the Democratic primary last week in Michigan, a swing state essential to his reelection, the wisdom of Joe Biden’s decision to face voters in November is again under intense scrutiny. Historically speaking, it isn’t too late for President Joe Biden to voluntarily drop his reelection bid.

Sydney Sweeney seems to enjoy making jokes about how big her breasts are. She once announced that her grandparents declared that she had the “best tits in Hollywood.” And she alluded to her bra size in her Saturday Night Live monologue this weekend, in which she described how she presented her parents with a “backup plan” if her initial attempt to break into acting failed. A PowerPoint slide flashed on the screen that read: Plan B: Show Boobs. It got a knowing laugh.

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.
Welcome back to The Daily’s Sunday culture edition, in which one Atlantic writer or editor reveals what’s keeping them entertained.

This article was originally published by The Conversation.
It’s been a warm day, maybe even a little humid, and the tall clouds in the distance remind you of cauliflower. You hear a sharp crack, like the sound of a batter hitting a home run, or a low rumble reminiscent of a truck driving down the highway. A distant thunderstorm, alive with lightning, is making itself known.

When then-President Donald Trump was briefed on the California wildfires in 2020, the scientific opinion he heard was that climate change was real and had contributed to the conflagrations that ended up consuming more than 4 million acres and killing 31 people. His response? “Science doesn’t know.”
Millions of Americans trusted Trump, a fact he leveraged to attack the trustworthiness of science itself. Trump’s actions are part of a larger pattern of assault on expertise.

Then, everything was garnish,
two kids and a house,
a wife who kept the
beds made, shirts ironed,
secrets hidden like dust
on the canned goods.
What can’t be washed
with vinegar—
scum of the coffee pot—or
set out in the sun with
fresh linen
my mother swears
had to be ironed
and I believe men
made work for women,
invented tile,
starch, matrimony,
and ama de casa
to chop the tomato
and lettuce sometimes
in bowls, often on the side
as adornment.