I hear you and understand the precedent. But I don't think it applies here. Yes, our institutions are weakened--but they still stand. This would never be passed into law as an amendment. Thus, they'd need a supreme court willing to engage in such an egregious miscarriage of justice that most would consider it to be treason.
While I find the Robert's court troubling, I don't think they're capable of such a thing.
Let's hope I'm right.
Absolutely. People talk about another civil war. If you start hear ing about spontaneous violence in the streets, that's when you need to worry. I think if this actually passed, we'd start hearing about stuff like that.
Realistically, Republicans know this has no chance of passing. Frankly, I think this is just mean-spirited trolling--which is a good indicator of the state of our politics. We want to see the other side suffer.
Tremendous respect for this lady. Speaking truth to power--particularly those with authoritarian aims--is vital to the future of our democracy.
This is the result of ever-expanding executive power.
I disagree. While I agree that Thomas and Alito are radicalized originalists, the rest of the court is more ambiguous. Roberts is an institutionalist with an incremental approach while Gorsuch favors textualism over originalism and occasionally swings left. Kavanaugh is a textualist with varying degrees of pragmatism on a case-by-case basis. Frankly, I find his jurisprudence to be rather clumsy. But he's certainly left of Thomas and Alito by a wide margin. Finally, while Barrett favors originalism, she exercises independence from the conservative wing more than any other justice and I have very little concern that she'd entertain such nonsense as this.