\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

WaPo: The Alternative to Supreme Court Enlargement is Surrender

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/19/why-eliza...
Turquoise business firm incel
  01/14/22
"Liberals are at a special disadvantage when it comes t...
carnelian sanctuary scourge upon the earth
  01/14/22
...
Chocolate Marvelous Abode Goyim
  01/14/22
lol. here is the classic "lib tears" blog post by ...
Wonderful spot
  01/14/22
Ljl
Twinkling candlestick maker station
  01/15/22
MAF
swollen electric market water buffalo
  01/15/22
>>>Liberals are at a special disadvantage when it c...
Turquoise business firm incel
  01/14/22
And add states, and change how voting work (including allowi...
Chocolate Marvelous Abode Goyim
  01/14/22
Definitely “wary of upsetting longstanding arrangement...
swashbuckling corner
  01/15/22
LIBERALS ALWAYS PROJECT What the right wing understands t...
Topaz mind-boggling pit laser beams
  01/14/22
...
heady resort
  01/14/22
There’s really no common ground that can be made with ...
Topaz mind-boggling pit laser beams
  01/14/22
It’s a highly effective strategy for achieving victori...
trip chestnut meetinghouse
  01/14/22
...
bonkers internal respiration
  01/14/22
It's ponerology writ large. These are the same tactics peopl...
heady resort
  01/14/22
Good analogy
Topaz mind-boggling pit laser beams
  01/14/22
Bonerology writ large
Tan jewess school cafeteria
  01/14/22
...
talented faggot firefighter athletic conference
  01/14/22
Brilliant
provocative idiotic indian lodge liquid oxygen
  01/14/22
great post. how or where did you learn to write "poner...
concupiscible dragon depressive
  01/14/22
...
Wonderful spot
  01/14/22
...
glittery church
  01/14/22
Wtf is ponerology
Twinkling candlestick maker station
  01/15/22
the study of evil. like theology is the study of god.
Wonderful spot
  01/15/22
yea that’s what i saw on google. i don’t underst...
Twinkling candlestick maker station
  01/15/22
...
Apoplectic box office ratface
  01/14/22
...
talented faggot firefighter athletic conference
  01/14/22
“Radically conservative” seems like an oxymoron
supple wagecucks whorehouse
  01/15/22
Liberals are at a special disadvantage when it comes to conf...
Hyperventilating diverse nursing home
  01/14/22
"It starts when Mitch McConnell hijacked two seats, but...
Pale alcoholic boistinker
  01/14/22
he put a rapist on the court he rushed the process he put ...
Razzle Clown Locale
  01/14/22
just making sure that the other seat that McConnell "hi...
Pale alcoholic boistinker
  01/14/22
3 seats! Really, RBG said that Trump shouldn't get to pick ...
Chocolate Marvelous Abode Goyim
  01/14/22
"dey took ARE seats!"
violet stag film gaping
  01/14/22
Rbg...libs say if garland couldn't be seated then ACB should...
rusted comical corn cake
  01/14/22
oh gotcha. should have known it would be some bullshit. I ge...
Pale alcoholic boistinker
  01/14/22
Yeah. It’s either one hijacked seat or zero.
swashbuckling corner
  01/15/22
play word games all you want. The fact is McConnell stole tw...
180 church building haunted graveyard
  01/14/22
Lol dey was stole
rusted comical corn cake
  01/14/22
lmao you have actual shit for brains
bronze bull headed nowag stock car
  01/14/22
LOL, the guy is overwhelmingly unpopular even now. If he di...
Chocolate Marvelous Abode Goyim
  01/14/22
you need two-thirds vote to remove a potus. sorry not happen...
180 church building haunted graveyard
  01/15/22
Libs are the real victims
Infuriating Laughsome Philosopher-king
  01/14/22
"Liberals are at a special disadvantage when it comes t...
Contagious Sexy Location
  01/14/22
...
Chocolate Marvelous Abode Goyim
  01/14/22
Any libs want to come in here and defend this other lib&rsqu...
Topaz mind-boggling pit laser beams
  01/14/22
...
Chocolate Marvelous Abode Goyim
  01/14/22
You have to hand it to libs they really play this power shit...
beady-eyed field
  01/14/22
They own every institutional lever of power along with the m...
Turquoise business firm incel
  01/14/22
Sounds like they don't own the supreme court according to th...
Vengeful curious crackhouse brethren
  01/14/22
I don't think it works and they aren't masterful at anything...
Vengeful curious crackhouse brethren
  01/14/22
Marcus Lithwich and Greenhouse all agree don’t you get...
beady-eyed field
  01/14/22
"the extremism, the indifference to precedent, the twis...
Offensive light cuckoldry brunch
  01/15/22
Can we get a velvet divorce going yet or is that still too e...
nofapping self-centered international law enforcement agency
  01/15/22


Poast new message in this thread



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 12:17 PM
Author: Turquoise business firm incel

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/19/why-elizabeth-warrens-endorsement-court-enlargement-matters/

The alternative to Supreme Court enlargement is surrender

What the right wing understands that liberals have mostly forgotten is that reshaping rules and institutions can determine outcomes in advance, undermining democratic decision-making. The trappings of democracy remain, but real power is vested in the hands of those who bent the rules to predetermine the results.

Liberals are at a special disadvantage when it comes to confronting a radically conservative Supreme Court because most of them are, by nature, institutionalists. They are wary of upsetting long-standing arrangements for fear of mimicking the destructive behavior of the other side and, in the process, legitimizing it.

But the aggressiveness of the right has turned this procedural delicacy into a rationalization for surrender.

Conservatives have abused the process of seating (and blocking) judges again and again. The current 6-3 right-leaning conservative Republican majority on the Supreme Court — let’s call the partisanship by its name — would be a 5-4 moderately liberal Democratic majority if Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had observed the long-standing norms surrounding appointments.

Without fear or shame, McConnell (1) blocked consideration of then-President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, to replace Antonin Scalia for 10 months until Donald Trump took the oath of office in 2017 and could name Neil M. Gorsuch; and (2) McConnell rushed through Trump’s final appointee, Amy Coney Barrett, holding a confirmation vote just eight days before Election Day 2020 — even as millions had already cast their ballots.

Now comes the deluge. The radicalism of this 6-3 majority is obvious. It has been well-documented most recently by my Post colleague Ruth Marcus, Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick and Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times. As they have warned, the extremism, the indifference to precedent, the twisting of the law, the imposition of ideology by judicial fiat — it’s all likely to get much worse.

Liberals, progressives and moderates who value the rule of law can wring their hands and sit back while this court carries us all back to the 19th century. Or they can say: Enough.

The first step toward doing so is to insist on the truth: This court has already been packed by the right. And the only effective way to undo the right’s power play is to unpack it by adding four justices.

Proponents of court enlargement are still a minority, even among liberals — for now. But their ranks are growing, and one important recruit is Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who endorsed the idea of adding justices last week.

True, Warren is a leading progressive, so perhaps you’re not surprised. But she is also a former law professor who reveres the judiciary and did not come to this position lightly.

“I wanted to believe in the independence of the Supreme Court,” Warren told me in an interview. “It's what I learned in junior high. It's what I studied in law school, and it's what I taught when I was a law professor. … But the Supreme Court has fundamentally changed in the past few years. It starts when Mitch McConnell hijacked two seats, but it accelerates when this extremist court knocks the foundations out of the premise of rule of law.

“In area after area,” she continued, “campaign finance, union organizing, equal protection, having a day in court, voting rights and now Roe, this court is willing to ignore decades and decades of settled law.”

Warren acknowledges that liberals were slow to see the impending catastrophe. “A lot of good liberals and progressives … never believed that a court would really overturn Roe, and they never saw how many other things this court was overturning.”

She’s especially concerned that by putting social issues such as abortion in the forefront, judicial conservatives give themselves cover for court decisions that enhance corporate power, reduce the ability of employees to fight back and undercut government’s capacity to regulate economic activity in the public interest.

Corporations, she said, “can capture the courts and get a backup, a second chance — a second chance to deny unions of the opportunity to organize, a second chance to keep people who’ve been cheated on [a] contract out of court, a second chance to deny the rights of people who are injured.

“So much of the early push on the right is corporate and it’s much quieter,” she added. “They don’t want to draw attention to it, and Democrats frankly didn’t pay a lot of attention to it.”

They are being forced to do so now.

People I respect, including most recently Marcus, argue that enlargement would permanently undercut the court’s legitimacy. I understand their concerns but would ask them to consider that this legitimacy has already been destroyed by the political right’s manipulations and the majority’s growing extremism.

The conservative justices want us to forget how they got their majority and to bow respectfully before their radicalism. Democracy, justice and moderation itself demand that we not capitulate.



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43783190)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 4:44 PM
Author: carnelian sanctuary scourge upon the earth

"Liberals are at a special disadvantage when it comes to confronting a radically conservative Supreme Court because most of them are, by nature, institutionalists."

HA HA

YEAH

HA HA

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43784751)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 9:09 PM
Author: Chocolate Marvelous Abode Goyim



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43786141)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 9:18 PM
Author: Wonderful spot

lol. here is the classic "lib tears" blog post by HLS professor as progressives drooled because they would soon, finally, have the court in their control.

===

Friday, May 06, 2016

Abandoning Defensive Crouch Liberal Constitutionalism

Mark Tushnet

Mark Tushnet

-->

Several generations of law students and their teachers grew up with federal courts dominated by conservatives. Not surprisingly, they found themselves wandering in the wilderness, looking for any sign of hope. The result: Defensive-crouch constitutionalism, with every liberal position asserted nervously, its proponents looking over their shoulders for retaliation by conservatives (in its elevated forms, fear of a backlash against aggressively liberal positions).

It’s time to stop. Right now more than half of the judges sitting on the courts of appeals were appointed by Democratic presidents, and – though I wasn’t able to locate up-to-date numbers – the same appears to be true of the district courts. And, those judges no longer have to be worried about reversal by the Supreme Court if they take aggressively liberal positions. (They might be reversed, but now there’s no guarantee.) And, we shouldn’t focus on the Court’s docket this year, which was shaped by conservative justices thinking that they could count to five on a bunch of cases. The docket will look quite different if they can’t see that path to five votes when they decide which cases to review.

What would abandoning defensive-crouch liberalism mean? (I’ve blogged about some of these points before.)

1 A jurisprudence of “wrong the day it was decided.” Liberals should be compiling lists of cases to be overruled at the first opportunity on the ground that they were wrong the day they were decided. My own list is Bakke (for rejecting all the rationales for affirmative action that really matter), Buckley v. Valeo (for ruling out the possibility that legislatures could develop reasonable campaign finance rules promoting small-r republicanism), Casey (for the “undue burden” test), and Shelby County. (I thought about including Washington v. Davis, but my third agenda item should be enough to deal with it.) Others will have their own candidates. What matters is that overruling key cases also means that a rather large body of doctrine will have to be built from the ground up. Thinking about what that doctrine should look like is important – more important than trying to maneuver to liberal goals through the narrow paths the bad precedents seem to leave open.

2 The culture wars are over; they lost, we won. Remember, they were the ones who characterized constitutional disputes as culture wars (see Justice Scalia in Romer v. Evans, and the Wikipedia entry for culture wars, which describes conservative activists, not liberals, using the term.) And they had opportunities to reach a cease fire, but rejected them in favor of a scorched earth policy. The earth that was scorched, though, was their own. (No conservatives demonstrated any interest in trading off recognition of LGBT rights for “religious liberty” protections. Only now that they’ve lost the battle over LGBT rights, have they made those protections central – seeing them, I suppose, as a new front in the culture wars. But, again, they’ve already lost the war.). For liberals, the question now is how to deal with the losers in the culture wars. That’s mostly a question of tactics. My own judgment is that taking a hard line (“You lost, live with it”) is better than trying to accommodate the losers, who – remember – defended, and are defending, positions that liberals regard as having no normative pull at all. Trying to be nice to the losers didn’t work well after the Civil War, nor after Brown. (And taking a hard line seemed to work reasonably well in Germany and Japan after 1945.) I should note that LGBT activists in particular seem to have settled on the hard-line approach, while some liberal academics defend more accommodating approaches. When specific battles in the culture wars were being fought, it might have made sense to try to be accommodating after a local victory, because other related fights were going on, and a hard line might have stiffened the opposition in those fights. But the war’s over, and we won.

3 Aggressively exploit the ambiguities and loopholes in unfavorable precedents that aren’t worth overruling. Take Wal-Mart: Confine it to its unusual facts (a huge nation-wide class, a questionable theory of liability), and don’t treat it as having any generative power in other cases. Or Washington v. Davis, which said that disparate racial impact wasn’t enough to trigger strict scrutiny, but that sometimes such an impact could support an inference of impermissible motive: Play the “sometimes” for all its worth. Defensive-crouch liberalism was afraid to be aggressive about the precedents because of a fear of reversal by higher courts. That fear can now be put aside. (Judge Reinhardt’s essay on habeas corpus, in the Michigan Law Review, is an exemplary discussion of how liberals can exploit ambiguities and loopholes.)

4 Related: Remember that doctrine is a way to empower our allies and weaken theirs. Conservative decisions on class-action arbitration should be understood as part of a long-term project of defunding the left. Much of the current Court’s voting rights jurisprudence strengthens Republican efforts selectively to shrink the electorate. Similarly with campaign finance jurisprudence. I don’t mean that these doctrines are consciously designed by the justices to have those effects, but outsiders – academics and activists – should understand that that’s what they do. (Nor do I mean that the efforts always succeed – see Evenwel for a failure.)

5 Our models are Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, not David Souter or John Marshall Harlan. With some ambivalence I’d add Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the list, the reluctance arising from the fact that her work as a judge has been shaped more than it should be by defensive crouch constitutionalism, particular in her sensitivity to the possibility of backlash. Still, when the votes are there, she’s been much like Brennan and Marshall (personality aside). Famously, Brennan said that he’d been around long enough to know what it was like to win, and what it was like to lose, implying that “this too shall pass,” though it’s taken a long time. (Or, channeling Sophie Tucker [or Mae West, or Beatrice Kaufman], he ‘d been a winner and a loser, and winning is better.)

6 Finally (trigger/crudeness alert), fuck Anthony Kennedy. I don’t mean that liberals should treat him with disrespect. But defensive-crouch liberalism meant not only trying to figure out arguments that would get Kennedy’s apparently crucial vote (not so crucial any more), but also trying to milk his opinions – and more generally, obviously conservative opinions – for doctrines that might be awkwardly pressed into the service of liberal goals. (Think here of how liberal constitutional scholars treated Kennedy’s [truly silly] concurring opinion in Parents Involved [“You can deal with the consequences of segregated housing patterns by locating new school construction carefully” – in districts that are closing rather than building schools], or his “views” about affirmative action, or recasting the Court’s federalism cases as actually good for liberals.) There’s a lot of liberal constitutional scholarship taking Anthony Kennedy’s “thought” and other conservative opinions as a guide to potentially liberal outcomes if only the cases are massaged properly. Stop it. (See agenda items 1 and 3 for how to treat those opinions.)

Of course all bets are off if Donald Trump becomes President. But if he does, constitutional doctrine is going to be the least of our worries.

Posted 1:15 PM by Mark Tushnet [link]



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43786178)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 15th, 2022 10:44 AM
Author: Twinkling candlestick maker station

Ljl

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43787868)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 15th, 2022 2:03 PM
Author: swollen electric market water buffalo

MAF

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43788793)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 12:19 PM
Author: Turquoise business firm incel

>>>Liberals are at a special disadvantage when it comes to confronting a radically conservative Supreme Court because most of them are, by nature, institutionalists. They are wary of upsetting long-standing arrangements for fear of mimicking the destructive behavior of the other side and, in the process, legitimizing it.

This is why Dems want to kill the filibuster and use state power against political opponents

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43783195)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 9:11 PM
Author: Chocolate Marvelous Abode Goyim

And add states, and change how voting work (including allowing 16 year olds to vote, allow mail-in voting with no identity verification, allowing non-citizens to vote, etc.), barring their most popular opponents from running again as "insurrectionists" (such as DJT and MTG), getting rid of the electoral college, and so on.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43786145)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 15th, 2022 3:06 PM
Author: swashbuckling corner

Definitely “wary of upsetting longstanding arrangements”!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43789101)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 12:34 PM
Author: Topaz mind-boggling pit laser beams

LIBERALS ALWAYS PROJECT

What the right wing understands that liberals have mostly forgotten is that reshaping rules and institutions can determine outcomes in advance, undermining democratic decision-making. The trappings of democracy remain, but real power is vested in the hands of those who bent the rules to predetermine the results.

Liberals are at a special disadvantage when it comes to confronting a radically conservative Supreme Court because most of them are, by nature, institutionalists. They are wary of upsetting long-standing arrangements for fear of mimicking the destructive behavior of the other side and, in the process, legitimizing it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43783274)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 12:34 PM
Author: heady resort



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43783275)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 12:37 PM
Author: Topaz mind-boggling pit laser beams

There’s really no common ground that can be made with someone like that. No more what the excesses the left has achieved, no matter all the skin suiting, people like this will tell you that conservatives are overreaching fascists. Stunning.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43783294)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 12:39 PM
Author: trip chestnut meetinghouse

It’s a highly effective strategy for achieving victories.

It’s so effective 99% of the right can’t even identify it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43783304)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 12:43 PM
Author: bonkers internal respiration



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43783320)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 12:47 PM
Author: heady resort

It's ponerology writ large. These are the same tactics people with personality disorders use, just hypothecated out into the political sphere. Normies who haven't experienced communism typically have no immune system capable of dealing with such tactics, just as normal people have no idea how to deal with malignant NPD or BPD.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43783336)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 12:48 PM
Author: Topaz mind-boggling pit laser beams

Good analogy

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43783343)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 12:51 PM
Author: Tan jewess school cafeteria

Bonerology writ large

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43783351)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 4:42 PM
Author: talented faggot firefighter athletic conference



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43784737)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 9:40 PM
Author: provocative idiotic indian lodge liquid oxygen

Brilliant

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43786270)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 9:47 PM
Author: concupiscible dragon depressive

great post.

how or where did you learn to write "ponerology writ large"?



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43786300)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 10:15 PM
Author: Wonderful spot



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43786435)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 10:17 PM
Author: glittery church



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43786443)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 15th, 2022 1:51 PM
Author: Twinkling candlestick maker station

Wtf is ponerology

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43788734)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 15th, 2022 2:25 PM
Author: Wonderful spot

the study of evil. like theology is the study of god.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43788916)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 15th, 2022 2:45 PM
Author: Twinkling candlestick maker station

yea that’s what i saw on google. i don’t understand his poast. what’s ponerology writ large. maybe i really am retarded

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43788993)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 12:47 PM
Author: Apoplectic box office ratface



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43783331)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 4:42 PM
Author: talented faggot firefighter athletic conference



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43784733)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 15th, 2022 10:33 AM
Author: supple wagecucks whorehouse

“Radically conservative” seems like an oxymoron

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43787812)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 12:45 PM
Author: Hyperventilating diverse nursing home

Liberals are at a special disadvantage when it comes to confronting a radically conservative Supreme Court because most of them are, by nature, institutionalists. They are wary of upsetting long-standing arrangements for fear of mimicking the destructive behavior of the other side and, in the process, legitimizing it.

LOLOLOLOLOL

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43783328)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 12:49 PM
Author: Pale alcoholic boistinker

"It starts when Mitch McConnell hijacked two seats, but it accelerates when this extremist court knocks the foundations out of the premise of rule of law."

I'm forgetting this, but what "two" seats did Mitch McConnell "hijack?" I get the argument for Merrick Garland, but what's the other one? I'm honestly forgetting.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43783346)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 12:52 PM
Author: Razzle Clown Locale

he put a rapist on the court

he rushed the process

he put someone on the court in trumps last year

etc etc

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43783353)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 12:53 PM
Author: Pale alcoholic boistinker

just making sure that the other seat that McConnell "hijacked" (according to libs) wasn't Kavannaugh

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43783362)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 9:12 PM
Author: Chocolate Marvelous Abode Goyim

3 seats! Really, RBG said that Trump shouldn't get to pick her replacement on her deathbed, remember?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43786151)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 12:55 PM
Author: violet stag film gaping

"dey took ARE seats!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43783368)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 12:53 PM
Author: rusted comical corn cake

Rbg...libs say if garland couldn't be seated then ACB should have been the same. Seems like you can't call that two seats but lol lib logic etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43783363)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 12:55 PM
Author: Pale alcoholic boistinker

oh gotcha. should have known it would be some bullshit. I get why libs are mad about all of that but "hijack" is a bit hyperbolic.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43783372)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 15th, 2022 3:08 PM
Author: swashbuckling corner

Yeah. It’s either one hijacked seat or zero.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43789104)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 12:56 PM
Author: 180 church building haunted graveyard

play word games all you want. The fact is McConnell stole two seats so when Dems inevitably pack the court the GOP has nothing they can say about it. No amount of semantics will save you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43783375)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 1:00 PM
Author: rusted comical corn cake

Lol dey was stole

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43783398)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 4:11 PM
Author: bronze bull headed nowag stock car

lmao you have actual shit for brains

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43784524)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 9:27 PM
Author: Chocolate Marvelous Abode Goyim

LOL, the guy is overwhelmingly unpopular even now. If he did that he'll be impeached when Rs take over and the entire population will cheer. Then Kamala will be kicked to the curb in the same way. House R leader will become POTUS, add more R SCOTUS justices. Then the REAL fun begins.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43786219)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 15th, 2022 7:41 AM
Author: 180 church building haunted graveyard

you need two-thirds vote to remove a potus. sorry not happening.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43787419)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 12:59 PM
Author: Infuriating Laughsome Philosopher-king

Libs are the real victims

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43783390)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 1:02 PM
Author: Contagious Sexy Location

"Liberals are at a special disadvantage when it comes to confronting a radically conservative Supreme Court because most of them are, by nature, institutionalists. They are wary of upsetting long-standing arrangements for fear of mimicking the destructive behavior of the other side and, in the process, legitimizing it."

every day really is opposite day

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43783412)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 9:11 PM
Author: Chocolate Marvelous Abode Goyim



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43786146)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 4:43 PM
Author: Topaz mind-boggling pit laser beams

Any libs want to come in here and defend this other lib’s diatribe?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43784745)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 9:12 PM
Author: Chocolate Marvelous Abode Goyim



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43786153)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 9:13 PM
Author: beady-eyed field

You have to hand it to libs they really play this power shit masterfully. They are horrible at managing their coalition but at debilitating their enemies they are spectacular. They have framed this all such that a conservative court acting in any somewhat conservative manner is grounds for extreme exercises of power like expanding the court. And it works, the court is clearly terrified as coming down on cases cons actually care about, like affirmative action (just denied cert on Asian case)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43786157)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 9:29 PM
Author: Turquoise business firm incel

They own every institutional lever of power along with the mass media

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43786225)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 9:31 PM
Author: Vengeful curious crackhouse brethren

Sounds like they don't own the supreme court according to this article.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43786236)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 9:31 PM
Author: Vengeful curious crackhouse brethren

I don't think it works and they aren't masterful at anything really except making a terrible candidate who never should've won the presidency (Trump) not get elected again which is hilarious because they just shot themselves in the foot and will lose all branches in 2024.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43786232)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 14th, 2022 9:15 PM
Author: beady-eyed field

Marcus Lithwich and Greenhouse all agree don’t you get it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43786165)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 15th, 2022 1:56 PM
Author: Offensive light cuckoldry brunch

"the extremism, the indifference to precedent, the twisting of the law, the imposition of ideology by judicial fiat"

Sounds like boilerplate from the Impeach Earl Warren movement of the 1960s

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43788767)



Reply Favorite

Date: January 15th, 2022 2:27 PM
Author: nofapping self-centered international law enforcement agency

Can we get a velvet divorce going yet or is that still too edgy for normie cons?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5007257&forum_id=2#43788924)