It’s just constitutional adlibs all the way down nowadays.

I remember watching a dialogue between him and Justice Breyer, IIRC, and realizing all he was doing was talking over Breyer and changing the subject. He controlled the conversation like a pol in a debate, while Breyer tried to discuss the substance of ideas with a supposed scholar.

That and their clerks (who likely draft substantial portions of their writing) at this point are fresh from the contemporary, radicalized Fed Soc mill and plugged directly into the worst dregs of the bilious fever cult that calls itself conservative intelligentsia.

Impeach and remove. We will need a Congress with more fire in its belly than it has had since Reconstruction, though.

I hate these people.

This is a very important detail to correct, I was mighty confused.

Senator, will you commit to vote for enlarging the Court, then? The only way to get a better Court in our lifetime is to add seats as soon as possible.

If you’re clinging to the flotsam what are you thinking? You’re thinking, “I gotta get these drugs to America.”

The reason the judiciary functions is because judges understand that despite everyone being human beings who hold grudges and have stupid opinions and peccadilloes and flaws, there is a sense that you have to justify what you're doing on more than "because I say so."

This Court is undermining that.

Voters are motivated by identity more than policy. Great policy must be part of a recognizable, big-tent narrative about who we as Americans are to win low-info voters who keep voting for politicians who promise policies they don’t want but who speak to/represent their identity.

Yep. Identity drives political attitudes, and as social media algorithmically radicalizes communities and thus identities, political radicalization quickly follows.

This is the admiral over the SEALs.

Murder prosecutions were removed from the chain of command a couple years ago. It's JAGs all the way down for major crimes now.

bsky.app/profile/anja... this period of American politics won’t last forever and institutions should behave accordingly

Which is usually a distinction people with her worldview are quick to pounce on others for misstating.

I'm not sure if they (the political appointees, not the lawyers) honestly think non-expert GWOT-era talking points justify these things, or if they know they don't but know that Viewers At Home think they do.

Wonder how this will figure into the "irreparable harm" of the stay analysis.