It's almost like there's a reason Supreme Court Justices are supposed to have a rigorous and lengthy confirmation process, so that someone given a lifetime appointment to the highest court is of sufficient moral standing that people feel comfortable their representatives in the Senate imbuing them with that authority.
There should be more research put into a SCOTUS appointee than the average renovator puts into bathroom fixtures.
MorganV on
+13
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
so, i am skeptical of volatile and sensational headlines, i figured it would be a good idea to dig in
the headline is just the tip of the iceberg. the story just keeps getting more and more disgusting
she also opined that the Obama admin direction to increase investigation of sexual assault cases likely led to discrimination against men
namely that men would be disbelieved and women believed purely based on sex discrimination
this woman is a fucking monster
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+12
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
i guess she and Kavanaugh will have some fun times hanging out telling war stories
"After a 19-year old pregnant prison inmate was repeatedly raped by a prison guard, Amy Coney Barrett ruled that the county responsible for the prison could not be held liable because the sexual assaults fell outside of the guard's official duties.” https://t.co/8Jyzqvcbnh
Having read the linked article I'm not sure I disagree with her. There's another ruling on a similar case where she did uphold damages apparently because there was sufficient evidence that the county was negligent in providing security. So I assume in this case she didn't think the county was guilty of negligence. Obviously I can't say for sure without digging through like a ton of court documents, assuming they are even public, but I can't agree that the county has any legal liability if it did do everything reasonable it should have to guard against someone doing this but they did it anyway.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
If a prison guard repeatedly rapes someone. The prison did not do enough to prevent it.
The
Fucking
End
Edit for relevant quote.
The case was filed after former prison guard Daryl Christensen was convicted of sexually assaulting the women hundreds of times over three years in 2016.
If Democrats get back in power they should both be investigated.
There are skeletons to be found for both of them and you can't rule on cases if you're in a cell.
while i agree in principle that's just simply not going to happen
but they can be made to be irrelevant
I think we need to normalize the investigation and removal of judges, because there is a toxic culture of judicial inviolability that has cropped up in the legal system. The Persky recall back in 2018 was a good demonstration of this - judge gives a sweetheart sentence to a convicted rapist, investigation shows him giving leniency to sexual abusers, and the legal system refused to punish him whatsoever - leading to the public calling for his (successful) recall in response, which had the legal community looking on apoplectic in their doing so, refusing to acknowledge the role their refusal to punish him in any manner led to that result.
I'm all for judicial independence, but when judges for all practical senses have no actual oversight, something has gone wrong.
If Democrats get back in power they should both be investigated.
There are skeletons to be found for both of them and you can't rule on cases if you're in a cell.
while i agree in principle that's just simply not going to happen
but they can be made to be irrelevant
I think we need to normalize the investigation and removal of judges, because there is a toxic culture of judicial inviolability that has cropped up in the legal system. The Persky recall back in 2018 was a good demonstration of this - judge gives a sweetheart sentence to a convicted rapist, investigation shows him giving leniency to sexual abusers, and the legal system refused to punish him whatsoever - leading to the public calling for his (successful) recall in response, which had the legal community looking on apoplectic in their doing so, refusing to acknowledge the role their refusal to punish him in any manner led to that result.
I'm all for judicial independence, but when judges for all practical senses have no actual oversight, something has gone wrong.
i also agree with this, i just don't believe for a minute it will happen to a Supreme Court Justice in the next four years
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+2
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Jesus jumped up Christ this rape-enabler is about to be on our SCOTUS for decades.
If Democrats get back in power they should both be investigated.
There are skeletons to be found for both of them and you can't rule on cases if you're in a cell.
while i agree in principle that's just simply not going to happen
but they can be made to be irrelevant
I think we need to normalize the investigation and removal of judges, because there is a toxic culture of judicial inviolability that has cropped up in the legal system. The Persky recall back in 2018 was a good demonstration of this - judge gives a sweetheart sentence to a convicted rapist, investigation shows him giving leniency to sexual abusers, and the legal system refused to punish him whatsoever - leading to the public calling for his (successful) recall in response, which had the legal community looking on apoplectic in their doing so, refusing to acknowledge the role their refusal to punish him in any manner led to that result.
I'm all for judicial independence, but when judges for all practical senses have no actual oversight, something has gone wrong.
While I don't disagree, and while I normally don't think Democrats should shy away from things because of what they're afraid Republicans would do, in this case, I do.
If removal of a Justice is not just attempted, but actually happens, the ratfuckers will be out in force, and having the judicial branch in turmoil is "pack it all up, it's over" territory.
They will absolutely weaponize it in a way that Democrats won't, and that scares the shit out of me.
0
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
If Democrats get back in power they should both be investigated.
There are skeletons to be found for both of them and you can't rule on cases if you're in a cell.
while i agree in principle that's just simply not going to happen
but they can be made to be irrelevant
I think we need to normalize the investigation and removal of judges, because there is a toxic culture of judicial inviolability that has cropped up in the legal system. The Persky recall back in 2018 was a good demonstration of this - judge gives a sweetheart sentence to a convicted rapist, investigation shows him giving leniency to sexual abusers, and the legal system refused to punish him whatsoever - leading to the public calling for his (successful) recall in response, which had the legal community looking on apoplectic in their doing so, refusing to acknowledge the role their refusal to punish him in any manner led to that result.
I'm all for judicial independence, but when judges for all practical senses have no actual oversight, something has gone wrong.
While I don't disagree, and while I normally don't think Democrats should shy away from things because of what they're afraid Republicans would do, in this case, I do.
If removal of a Justice is not just attempted, but actually happens, the ratfuckers will be out in force, and having the judicial branch in turmoil is "pack it all up, it's over" territory.
They will absolutely weaponize it in a way that Democrats won't, and that scares the shit out of me.
I think we need to normalize the investigation and removal of judges, because there is a toxic culture of judicial inviolability that has cropped up in the legal system. The Persky recall back in 2018 was a good demonstration of this - judge gives a sweetheart sentence to a convicted rapist, investigation shows him giving leniency to sexual abusers, and the legal system refused to punish him whatsoever - leading to the public calling for his (successful) recall in response, which had the legal community looking on apoplectic in their doing so, refusing to acknowledge the role their refusal to punish him in any manner led to that result.
I'm all for judicial independence, but when judges for all practical senses have no actual oversight, something has gone wrong.
I don't disagree in general.
But we know this would also be weaponized by the GOP.
So how does one thread that needle, allowing for egregious assholes to be removed, without seeing every last 'liberal activist judge' beset by the same system?
NOTE: let's not pretend like this is some rhetorical gotcha, it is a genuine and sincere question asking how the US legal system, which seems to currently be sitting somewhere around "broken AF" in many ways, could be improved without the obvious consequences of doing so.
Especially since it would also require Democrats fixing the massive pile of bad actors put into place during the administration in a defendable way while possibly seeing said legal system see a massive uptick in those actions across the board.
This is NOT to say that it can't or shouldn't be done, but let's look beyond and ponder how it could be done while minimizing things reasonably, because y'all are dealing with unreasonable and bad faith actors, so surely 'Mr. Thinks Rapists Are Okay' will be put up alongside 'Maybe Kind Of Ruled Once In A Not So Great Way' and both will get run through the wringer.
If this action relies on congress, imagine 2 or 4 years out when the winds change once again.
And maybe there is no good answer, but if this is the path of discussion we wish to take, we should at least do so contemplating all of the consequences, intended and otherwise, of doing so.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
+2
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Guys they've literally already packed the court and weaponized the judiciary. There's nothing left to do but respond in kind. Looking them sternly in the eye and saying This Is Inappropriate! has not and will not do jack shit to stop them from further eroding the bedrocks of this republic. We gotta crush them now before it's too late.
+39
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
The GOP have broken the government. We can either do something about it or enjoy our lives as corporate wageslaves in an oligarchy with theocratic rules.
It's about 30 years too late to give a shit about norms.
The entire point of expanding the judiciary is to protect the new voting rights act and kill gerrymandering, which ends the GOP's ability to exercise power without actually winning a majority of the vote.
And a situation where SCOTUS essentially swings whenever a party controls the House, Senate, and Presidency makes WAY more sense than when a strictly minority party has control over it forever.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Guys they've literally already packed the court and weaponized the judiciary. There's nothing left to do but respond in kind. Looking them sternly in the eye and saying This Is Inappropriate! has not and will not do jack shit to stop them from further eroding the bedrocks of this republic. We gotta crush them now before it's too late.
Not saying we shouldn't pack the court. Absolutely feel that's justified. But that's more easily defended than trying to remove Justices that have been seated, especially if, for the most part, the reason for trying to unseat them (especially Kavanaugh and Thomas*) were known at the time of their confirmation.
* Thomas with regards the sexual harrassment issues. Absolutely think he should be the first one looked into if they do decide to do it, for the conflict of interest shit that's happened since he was seated.
Because while it will swing back and forth, I don't think the Democrats have the stomach to do the truly craven shit that Republicans will, and putting people like Barrett and Rao into positions of power aren't going to be balanced out by the kind of people that Democrats would.
If I thought Democrats would fight ratfuckery with similar ratfuckery, then maybe. But we know that's not going to happen, so the consequences of tit-for-tat is going to favor Republicans long term.
If Democrats get back in power they should both be investigated.
There are skeletons to be found for both of them and you can't rule on cases if you're in a cell.
while i agree in principle that's just simply not going to happen
but they can be made to be irrelevant
I think we need to normalize the investigation and removal of judges, because there is a toxic culture of judicial inviolability that has cropped up in the legal system. The Persky recall back in 2018 was a good demonstration of this - judge gives a sweetheart sentence to a convicted rapist, investigation shows him giving leniency to sexual abusers, and the legal system refused to punish him whatsoever - leading to the public calling for his (successful) recall in response, which had the legal community looking on apoplectic in their doing so, refusing to acknowledge the role their refusal to punish him in any manner led to that result.
I'm all for judicial independence, but when judges for all practical senses have no actual oversight, something has gone wrong.
Insulating judicial decisions from the political process isn't a bad idea, but it can't go only 1 way. The big problem the US has is politics goes into picking judges but then everyone is supposed to pretend it's no longer political once they are on the bench.
This is of course the whole point of Roberts' "balls and strikes" smokescreen.
Guys they've literally already packed the court and weaponized the judiciary. There's nothing left to do but respond in kind. Looking them sternly in the eye and saying This Is Inappropriate! has not and will not do jack shit to stop them from further eroding the bedrocks of this republic. We gotta crush them now before it's too late.
Again, we also need to remember that we don't NEED an unfair court stacked to the gills with incompetent hard left activists whove never tried a case in their life and think that people shouldn't be allowed to own pets or eat beef or something.
We have the advantage that all we need to do is nominate fair minded justices who understand that their role is to make sure that laws are interested accurately, while respecting peoples basic freedoms. Everything we want stems from a few simple statements that everyone agrees our basic rights. Like the right to vote, and the right to have your vote be of approximately equal value to someone else. Or that women should control their own healthcare and be allowed to safeguard their own lives.
We don't need a court that will strike down any attempt to cut taxes on the rich. We just need a fair court. And so, that's all we need to get to.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
Guys they've literally already packed the court and weaponized the judiciary. There's nothing left to do but respond in kind. Looking them sternly in the eye and saying This Is Inappropriate! has not and will not do jack shit to stop them from further eroding the bedrocks of this republic. We gotta crush them now before it's too late.
Again, we also need to remember that we don't NEED an unfair court stacked to the gills with incompetent hard left activists whove never tried a case in their life and think that people shouldn't be allowed to own pets or eat beef or something.
We have the advantage that all we need to do is nominate fair minded justices who understand that their role is to make sure that laws are interested accurately, while respecting peoples basic freedoms. Everything we want stems from a few simple statements that everyone agrees our basic rights. Like the right to vote, and the right to have your vote be of approximately equal value to someone else. Or that women should control their own healthcare and be allowed to safeguard their own lives.
We don't need a court that will strike down any attempt to cut taxes on the rich. We just need a fair court. And so, that's all we need to get to.
I don't think anyone is calling for
Again, we also need to remember that we don't NEED an unfair court stacked to the gills with incompetent hard left activists whove never tried a case in their life and think that people shouldn't be allowed to own pets or eat beef or something.
this.
We're saying stack the court with left-leaning qualified people that will restore voting rights, rights for LGBTQ folks, immigrants, etc., and stop holding the corporation as sacred.
Which, in case you haven't noticed, is pretty fucking partisian in the current climate.
Stack the court like some fucking Duplos and let's wrest America back from minority rule intent on subjugating everyone else in the service of white supremacy.
Guys they've literally already packed the court and weaponized the judiciary. There's nothing left to do but respond in kind. Looking them sternly in the eye and saying This Is Inappropriate! has not and will not do jack shit to stop them from further eroding the bedrocks of this republic. We gotta crush them now before it's too late.
Again, we also need to remember that we don't NEED an unfair court stacked to the gills with incompetent hard left activists whove never tried a case in their life and think that people shouldn't be allowed to own pets or eat beef or something.
We have the advantage that all we need to do is nominate fair minded justices who understand that their role is to make sure that laws are interested accurately, while respecting peoples basic freedoms. Everything we want stems from a few simple statements that everyone agrees our basic rights. Like the right to vote, and the right to have your vote be of approximately equal value to someone else. Or that women should control their own healthcare and be allowed to safeguard their own lives.
We don't need a court that will strike down any attempt to cut taxes on the rich. We just need a fair court. And so, that's all we need to get to.
I don't think anyone is calling for
Again, we also need to remember that we don't NEED an unfair court stacked to the gills with incompetent hard left activists whove never tried a case in their life and think that people shouldn't be allowed to own pets or eat beef or something.
this.
We're saying stack the court with left-leaning qualified people that will restore voting rights, rights for LGBTQ folks, immigrants, etc., and stop holding the corporation as sacred.
Which, in case you haven't noticed, is pretty fucking partisian in the current climate.
Stack the court like some fucking Duplos and let's wrest America back from minority rule intent on subjugating everyone else in the service of white supremacy.
What im saying is that we shouldn't be afraid to appoint new justices to the court because they would make rulings that would be bad and unfair towards the other side. We dont need the evil liberal version of the court, so we don't need to worry about actually doing something wrong here. If you appoint fair minded judges to the court, it should not matter how many of them there are. And so, we shouldn't worry about doing so. Some of the counterarguments I see are based on the concept that Republicans do something bad so we do something bad and everything then is terrible forever. But we don't need to do something bad. We can even appoint people Republicans think are technically capable justices.
It shouldnt be hard to find 4 qualified public defenders or labor rights attorneys
Also, no more Ivy League lawyers, and it would be nice to have a few more Jewish and Protestant judges as well - the degree that the Catholic Church is represented on the court is frankly ridiculous, given the actual religious demographics of the US.
I dont really care much abiut their religious makeup. Catholics have been all over the board on the court.
It's less s problem of religious representation than of the justices substituting their experience for what actually happened, or the law.
Yeah like if you bring on public defenders youll have fewer ivy league ghouls for obvious reasons and its not like Id mind having fewer Catholics on the court, but just because Scalia and I could check a box in common its not like he ever really worked in my interests.
The large number of Catholics on the court has always seemed like this bizarre factoid rather then any sort of indication of catholic religious influence on the courts.
The large number of Catholics on the court has always seemed like this bizarre factoid rather then any sort of indication of catholic religious influence on the courts.
It's especially weird given it's america.
Moving your way through all the glad handing and schooling and insitutional shit works better when you have a serious network behind you, which Catholics are great at and protestants' doesnt help them because they're all doing a bunch of looney tunes bullshit.
The GOP have broken the government. We can either do something about it or enjoy our lives as corporate wageslaves in an oligarchy with theocratic rules.
It's about 30 years too late to give a shit about norms.
The Gop have also radicalized, militarized and weaponized their base, have their own propaganda network and are being helped by the fascist internationale.
The battle against this shit should've started 20 years ago.
Nowadays, it's way past "too late". All you can do is look reality in the eyes and realize that "conservatives" aren't, that all they want is the ole "in group that is protected, but not bound, out groups that are bound, but not protected by law", and the only in group is rich white land owners basically.
They fully want to turn back to medieval practices, and of course they're not being bound by "norms" or anything useless like that. They use the law to abolish the law.
+11
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Cruz and company are running scared that the Dems are going to pack the court, so instead of offering a compromise solution to the consternation over ACB's prospective judgeship they're going to pull the ladder up after her and flip everybody off as they ride into the sunset.
Cruz and company are running scared that the Dems are going to pack the court, so instead of offering a compromise solution to the consternation over ACB's prospective judgeship they're going to pull the ladder up after her and flip everybody off as they ride into the sunset.
The hilarious thing about this ineffectual gesture is that it confirms Democrats do in fact have the power to expand the court.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Posts
There should be more research put into a SCOTUS appointee than the average renovator puts into bathroom fixtures.
the headline is just the tip of the iceberg. the story just keeps getting more and more disgusting
she also opined that the Obama admin direction to increase investigation of sexual assault cases likely led to discrimination against men
namely that men would be disbelieved and women believed purely based on sex discrimination
this woman is a fucking monster
There are skeletons to be found for both of them and you can't rule on cases if you're in a cell.
while i agree in principle that's just simply not going to happen
but they can be made to be irrelevant
Having read the linked article I'm not sure I disagree with her. There's another ruling on a similar case where she did uphold damages apparently because there was sufficient evidence that the county was negligent in providing security. So I assume in this case she didn't think the county was guilty of negligence. Obviously I can't say for sure without digging through like a ton of court documents, assuming they are even public, but I can't agree that the county has any legal liability if it did do everything reasonable it should have to guard against someone doing this but they did it anyway.
I'm sure they'll have the best time over a couple of drinks.
Shit
If a prison guard repeatedly rapes someone. The prison did not do enough to prevent it.
The
Fucking
End
Edit for relevant quote.
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
*washes hands*
I think we need to normalize the investigation and removal of judges, because there is a toxic culture of judicial inviolability that has cropped up in the legal system. The Persky recall back in 2018 was a good demonstration of this - judge gives a sweetheart sentence to a convicted rapist, investigation shows him giving leniency to sexual abusers, and the legal system refused to punish him whatsoever - leading to the public calling for his (successful) recall in response, which had the legal community looking on apoplectic in their doing so, refusing to acknowledge the role their refusal to punish him in any manner led to that result.
I'm all for judicial independence, but when judges for all practical senses have no actual oversight, something has gone wrong.
i also agree with this, i just don't believe for a minute it will happen to a Supreme Court Justice in the next four years
She can hang out with the rapist who will be there just as long.
And the sexual harrasser who will be there for at least one more decade probably.
While I don't disagree, and while I normally don't think Democrats should shy away from things because of what they're afraid Republicans would do, in this case, I do.
If removal of a Justice is not just attempted, but actually happens, the ratfuckers will be out in force, and having the judicial branch in turmoil is "pack it all up, it's over" territory.
They will absolutely weaponize it in a way that Democrats won't, and that scares the shit out of me.
It's already weaponized, so fuck them.
I don't disagree in general.
But we know this would also be weaponized by the GOP.
So how does one thread that needle, allowing for egregious assholes to be removed, without seeing every last 'liberal activist judge' beset by the same system?
NOTE: let's not pretend like this is some rhetorical gotcha, it is a genuine and sincere question asking how the US legal system, which seems to currently be sitting somewhere around "broken AF" in many ways, could be improved without the obvious consequences of doing so.
Especially since it would also require Democrats fixing the massive pile of bad actors put into place during the administration in a defendable way while possibly seeing said legal system see a massive uptick in those actions across the board.
This is NOT to say that it can't or shouldn't be done, but let's look beyond and ponder how it could be done while minimizing things reasonably, because y'all are dealing with unreasonable and bad faith actors, so surely 'Mr. Thinks Rapists Are Okay' will be put up alongside 'Maybe Kind Of Ruled Once In A Not So Great Way' and both will get run through the wringer.
If this action relies on congress, imagine 2 or 4 years out when the winds change once again.
And maybe there is no good answer, but if this is the path of discussion we wish to take, we should at least do so contemplating all of the consequences, intended and otherwise, of doing so.
It's about 30 years too late to give a shit about norms.
And a situation where SCOTUS essentially swings whenever a party controls the House, Senate, and Presidency makes WAY more sense than when a strictly minority party has control over it forever.
Not saying we shouldn't pack the court. Absolutely feel that's justified. But that's more easily defended than trying to remove Justices that have been seated, especially if, for the most part, the reason for trying to unseat them (especially Kavanaugh and Thomas*) were known at the time of their confirmation.
* Thomas with regards the sexual harrassment issues. Absolutely think he should be the first one looked into if they do decide to do it, for the conflict of interest shit that's happened since he was seated.
Because while it will swing back and forth, I don't think the Democrats have the stomach to do the truly craven shit that Republicans will, and putting people like Barrett and Rao into positions of power aren't going to be balanced out by the kind of people that Democrats would.
If I thought Democrats would fight ratfuckery with similar ratfuckery, then maybe. But we know that's not going to happen, so the consequences of tit-for-tat is going to favor Republicans long term.
Insulating judicial decisions from the political process isn't a bad idea, but it can't go only 1 way. The big problem the US has is politics goes into picking judges but then everyone is supposed to pretend it's no longer political once they are on the bench.
This is of course the whole point of Roberts' "balls and strikes" smokescreen.
Again, we also need to remember that we don't NEED an unfair court stacked to the gills with incompetent hard left activists whove never tried a case in their life and think that people shouldn't be allowed to own pets or eat beef or something.
We have the advantage that all we need to do is nominate fair minded justices who understand that their role is to make sure that laws are interested accurately, while respecting peoples basic freedoms. Everything we want stems from a few simple statements that everyone agrees our basic rights. Like the right to vote, and the right to have your vote be of approximately equal value to someone else. Or that women should control their own healthcare and be allowed to safeguard their own lives.
We don't need a court that will strike down any attempt to cut taxes on the rich. We just need a fair court. And so, that's all we need to get to.
I don't think anyone is calling for
this.
We're saying stack the court with left-leaning qualified people that will restore voting rights, rights for LGBTQ folks, immigrants, etc., and stop holding the corporation as sacred.
Which, in case you haven't noticed, is pretty fucking partisian in the current climate.
Stack the court like some fucking Duplos and let's wrest America back from minority rule intent on subjugating everyone else in the service of white supremacy.
What im saying is that we shouldn't be afraid to appoint new justices to the court because they would make rulings that would be bad and unfair towards the other side. We dont need the evil liberal version of the court, so we don't need to worry about actually doing something wrong here. If you appoint fair minded judges to the court, it should not matter how many of them there are. And so, we shouldn't worry about doing so. Some of the counterarguments I see are based on the concept that Republicans do something bad so we do something bad and everything then is terrible forever. But we don't need to do something bad. We can even appoint people Republicans think are technically capable justices.
Also, no more Ivy League lawyers, and it would be nice to have a few more Jewish and Protestant judges as well - the degree that the Catholic Church is represented on the court is frankly ridiculous, given the actual religious demographics of the US.
It's less s problem of religious representation than of the justices substituting their experience for what actually happened, or the law.
Yeah like if you bring on public defenders youll have fewer ivy league ghouls for obvious reasons and its not like Id mind having fewer Catholics on the court, but just because Scalia and I could check a box in common its not like he ever really worked in my interests.
It's especially weird given it's america.
Moving your way through all the glad handing and schooling and insitutional shit works better when you have a serious network behind you, which Catholics are great at and protestants' doesnt help them because they're all doing a bunch of looney tunes bullshit.
I was going to say, but then you'd have to have an ultra conservative paranoid fool as well and was like...oh.....wait....
The Gop have also radicalized, militarized and weaponized their base, have their own propaganda network and are being helped by the fascist internationale.
The battle against this shit should've started 20 years ago.
Nowadays, it's way past "too late". All you can do is look reality in the eyes and realize that "conservatives" aren't, that all they want is the ole "in group that is protected, but not bound, out groups that are bound, but not protected by law", and the only in group is rich white land owners basically.
They fully want to turn back to medieval practices, and of course they're not being bound by "norms" or anything useless like that. They use the law to abolish the law.
The hilarious thing about this ineffectual gesture is that it confirms Democrats do in fact have the power to expand the court.