Well.

@StephanieJones is on a roll. Instead of reposting each of her substack pieces, I'll just send you here:
https://stephaniejones2.substack.com

I've mentioned Stephanie a few times. I've tried to get her to be more active here, but she really doesn't do much on social media.

Adding: She is very accomplished. There is no room here for her resume. Among other things she served on the Congressional committee investigating the J6 attack.

Stephanie’s Substack | Stephanie Jones | Substack

My personal Substack. Click to read Stephanie’s Substack, by Stephanie Jones, a Substack publication. Launched 6 months ago.

@Teri_Kanefield I barely started reading and I think she's great
@Teri_Kanefield @StephanieJones omg the Kamala thing is so on point

@minervakoenig @Teri_Kanefield @StephanieJones

Every article a banger. Amazing voice of clarity in these weird/twisted times. Thank you, Ms. Jones.

@ralfmaximus @Teri_Kanefield @StephanieJones After the debate I was all, 'hey a vote for Joe is a vote for Kamala,' and people were like *crickets.* I couldn't understand it, but now I do. Educational moment for this honky crone

@Teri_Kanefield @StephanieJones

Teri, thank you so much for this, I just subscribed to Stephanie's substack.

Especially since this wave of punditry over the debate, and again with another explosion of it from yesterday's Supreme Court ruling, I've been missing my Teri Kanefield sanity fix.

You deserve your time to step away, so that makes your post today that much more valuable.

@donaldham @Teri_Kanefield @StephanieJones

I agree about missing Teri's take - Ken White put out his podcast a couple of hours ago, and I thought, well, maybe he has some calming perspective, but no....he said, this was so much worse than it even seems. arrgghh.

@Teri_Kanefield

Is this site the same Stephanie? You shared a blog piece from this site a few months back, and its ‘about’ page has an impressive bio.

https://www.stephaniejones.com/

@StephanieJones

HOME

@Teri_Kanefield Thanks, those articles are 100% on point!

Do you perchance have good sources going into how bad yesterday's ruling is, what it really says and what it doesn't? I've been struggling to tell facts from punditry.

@Teri_Kanefield @balinares I would recommend going straight to the source and reading Sotomayor’s dissent. Even if you have trouble following the legalese sections in the middle, which spell out in detail exactly why the majority’s reasoning is spurious and unconstitutional, Sections I through III and Section VII (the closing section) should tell you what you need to know. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
@TulliusCicero43 That's a very good idea actually, thank you for the suggestion!
@Teri_Kanefield @StephanieJones: I agree, Stephanie's informative articles are well-worth reading.