Supreme Court

To Defeat Trump, New York Times Columnist Argues, We Must Abolish Judicial Review

Jamelle Bouie's counterintuitive recommendation would effectively eliminate constitutional limits on elected officials, including Trump and every demagogue who follows him.

|

New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie faults Democratic presidential contender Pete Buttigieg for his insufficiently ambitious plan to remake the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that progressives need to challenge the idea that the Court has the final say on what the Constitution means. The problem, Bouie says, is not that the Court is too partisan or political but that it has the power to override the will of the people—or at least the will of politicians who claim to speak for them. Bouie thinks that ditching the principle of judicial review enunciated in Marbury v. Madison will help progressives pursue their policy agenda. He does not pause to consider that it might also have consequences he would not like.

"Progressives have a crucial task ahead of them—not merely to defeat Trump and Trumpism, but to reclaim the Constitution and advance a more expansive vision of democratic freedom, in which Americans have inalienable economic rights as well as inalienable political and civil ones," Bouie writes. "It's a problem of power, which means it's impossible to fight this conflict with Buttigieg-style technocratic reforms. Progressives must look, instead, to presidents and other leaders who resisted the Supreme Court's claim to ultimate interpretive authority."

Bouie is right that the central issue is "a problem of power." The Constitution addresses that problem by imposing limits on what politicians can do, even when backed by a majority of voters. If politicians themselves get to decide what the Constitution means, those limits, including the ones that Bouie thinks are important, mean nothing.

We need not engage in wild hypotheticals to imagine the downside of this approach. Our current president thinks that flag burners should be jailed or stripped of their citizenship; that TV stations should lose their broadcast licenses when they air content that offends him; that he has the authority to wage wars Congress never declared and spend money Congress has repeatedly refused to appropriate; that due process is something people should get only after they've been stripped of their constitutional rights; and that birthright citizenship, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, can be abolished by an act of Congress. That's just for starters. In the name of "defeat[ing] Trump and Trumpism," Bouie is recommending a principle that would let Trump and every reckless demagogue who follows him do their worst.

"After decades of railing against 'activist judges,'" Bouie complains, "Republicans are poised to reverse the hard-won gains of activists and ordinary people through judicial fiat." He does not specify which "hard-won gains" he has in mind. But let's take Roe v. Wade as an example, since fears of its impending doom have been much in the news lately. It is possible to believe both that Roe was poorly reasoned and that women should be free to obtain abortions. In fact, that's the position staked out by pro-choice luminaries such as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe. But in Bouie's view, the result is all that matters; how you get there is so much legalistic mumbo-jumbo aimed at concealing a process that is inescapably political.

"There's no depoliticizing an institution that deals with political questions and operates in the context of political struggles and conflicts," Bouie writes. "The Supreme Court has always been political, and no reform short of ending the power of judicial review will disentangle it from ordinary, partisan politics."

Yet ending the power of judicial review would leave legislators free to do whatever they want, restrained only by their own consciences and their fear of political repercussions. Depending on who happens to be in power, legislators might enact Bouie's policy agenda, or they might endorse torture, approve warrantless searches, abolish the presumption of innocence, close down newspapers that criticize them, or exclude immigrants based on their race. They might even ban abortion.

The whole point of a constitution is to put some decisions outside the realm of politics. The course Bouie recommends would make literally everything subject to the whims of elected officials, including the current occupant of the White House.

The main benefit of the Trump administration, aside from its entertainment value and some surprisingly good judicial appointments, is that it encourages people who might otherwise be inclined to expand the power and scope of government to think seriously about what that means in practice. But some of those people are so focused on getting rid of Trump that they ignore the civics lesson he embodies.

[This post has been revised to correct the characterization of Ginsburg's position on Roe.]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

269 responses to “To Defeat Trump, New York Times Columnist Argues, We Must Abolish Judicial Review

  1. “inalienable economic rights”

    As a left-libertarian, this is exactly what I don’t want to hear from our progressive allies. It’s too close to the old “eat the rich” rhetoric that Democrats are, thankfully, mostly moving away from.

    1. By “inalienable economic rights”, he means being able to keep what you earn, private property rights, and free trade.

      …Nope, couldn’t type that with a straight face.

      1. No. His version is an actual real-world example of Newspeak

      1. Estate of Lemmy on line 1 …

          1. I’ll say 10 “Zeppelin Rules” as penance.

    2. It’s Orwellian to claim that “inalienable economic rights” include the right of two wolves and a sheep to vote on what’s for dinner, or any claim on the fruits of others’ labor.

      One can sum up Sullum’s article: “You can count on Democrats to support majority rule including the right to ignore individual freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights, when they’re in the majority.”

      1. Bingo: when the Left is out of power, they go to the courts to keep the other side’s agenda frustrated. When they are IN power any going to the courts to frustrate THEIR agenda is an intolerable assault on Democracy.

        1. Just like the Right.
          That’s why their time is about to expire. Two tribes of puppets, dancing on an authoritarian string.

          1. There’s a libertarian here?

      2. You are spot on with that. It amazing me that the fundamental of natural rights escapes them.

        1. Conservatives also suck at natural rights, but in a different way.
          See their blasphemy on gays, trannies, marriage and many smaller personal rights,

    3. They aren’t moving away from it, they’re just changing what it is called.

    4. “in which Americans have inalienable economic rights as well as inalienable political and civil ones”

      I shudder to imagine what he means by this. Definitely not what I think of by economic or political rights.

    5. Communist countries don’t have honest courts, and this is exactly what the NYT wants: Progressive (that is, communism without the death camps (at least for now) types, like the NYT want rule by “good guys” like the NYT. Well, the NYT may the okay for the poor souls who live in NY, but for the rest of America who prefer freedom, it is hateful.

    1. Are you using material obtained through Russian hacking to smear the most qualified Presidential candidate ever?

      #StillWithHer
      #LibertariansAgainstGreenwald

    2. I followed Greenwall’s link. How could you possibly swallow a total lack of proof … and his citing the infamous Gucifer 2.0 as a source!!!

  2. >>>progressives need to challenge the idea that the Court has the final say on what the Constitution means

    so it’s not a tax? also, get James Obergefell on the horn quick…

    1. …emanations of penumbras…

    2. get James Obergefell on the horn quick

      Yeah, I wasn’t aware that a constitutional right to SSM was the will of the people.

      1. The will of the Right Kind of People.

        1. The Constitution is the will of the people.
          Why does your ilk have so much contempt for equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights.

          Plus the 14th Amendment???

          1. Because libertarianism has changed a great deal since the 1970s when it advocated for minimal government that kept out of economic and social affairs alike. Today, the Libertarian Party draws a lot of right-wing populists who’ve fallen in love with Trump over his promise to build walls against entry of foreigners and foreign goods alike. Reason Magazine used to have long, well-thought out articles with analysis of several viewpoints on the issued at hand, and I’d almost say this piece one of them, except for its being shorter than the former norm.

            My guess is the Internet is taking the level of civil discourse down. Media outlets really have to struggle to stay afloat on ad clicks alone, as we recall Reason was a print product readers subscribed to. And the old-school political orientations won’t exist in a few more years, vanishing along with the concept of a civic society able to foster the compromises that sustain a republic. These problems affect the liberal and conservative wings, too, so that far from just a fault of libertarians, they’re becoming a crisis for our country. I don’t think it’s gonna end well.

            1. It’s already ended. I don’t disagree with all you said, but appreciate so thoughtful a response. We may be quite close on Reason and the Internet. It’s reason.com that panders to the authoritarian right. The magazine is still much better, though not close to what it was when it began in its current form.

              BTW, that’s why the Cato survey that found 59% of Americans would self identify as libertarian (on values) … but 91% of them reject the libertarian label. It was a Brand Management survey, but a very top independent pollster. In marketing terms the libertarian brand is “toxic” — as in deadly to its product or service.

              Today, it;s more that

              Most Americans are libertarian, but WE don’t know them.

              Their rejection was caused by our rejection of them. A libertarian society is NOT a free society. The desire for a society “just like me” is what we see with the Moonies, Branch Davidians and Jim Jones’ People’s Temple. A cult.

  3. They don’t care that Trump or “some demagogue that comes after him” will have this awesome power – they know that Obama was meant to be the last election that mattered and somehow the untermensch managed one last gasp and got Trump elected and that mistake will not be repeated. Once the Left gets power back, the first order of business is to make sure nobody to the right of Nancy Pelosi ever again gets elected.

    What exactly do you think they mean by this “fundamental transformation” of America they keep yawping about? Why do you think they want to do away with the Electoral College, equal representation in the Senate, voter ID laws, any checks on immigration, etc.? It’s all about their idea of “democratic socialism” – one man, one vote, one time. And that will be the end of the republic and limited government and individualism.

    1. The past 2.5 years have been one long meltdown for the Left because something happened that was supposed to be impossible. They had control of the public schools, higher ed., Hollywood, and the mass media. The only way things were supposed to go was further leftward.

    2. “We most stop the evil President by giving more power to the Presidency!”

      Christ, what a dumbass.

      1. Better to just make the progtards leave. failing that, dispose of them. Problem solved.

      2. Bouie, like a majority of prominent prog women, is an out and out moron. When Mazie and Occluded Cortex are your mouthpieces….jfc.

        1. The bigotry keeps getting scarier, on the Authoritarian Right.

          Left – Right = Zero

    3. “”It’s all about their idea of “democratic socialism” – one man, one vote, one time. “”

      Not even that. They oppose cleaning voter registrations that would ensure the above.

      1. I recently watched Tucker Carlson interview a prog who was trying to push the idea that asking if you are an American citizen on the census should be allowed. His arguments were incoherent an laughable at best. He even tried to push the idea that asking the question was unconstitutional. Carlson understandably ripped his arguments apart.
        The fact is, that the Dems will change any law to win. This is why they smeared Kavanagh so badly. They need control over the SC to push their agenda because they did not control any branches of government at the time.
        RBG should have retired a few years ago but I suspect the Dems are desperate to have her hang on until at least 2020 in the hope that they can defeat Trump and she will retire within weeks if a Dems is elected president. However, I doubt this will happen because it is likely Trump will win in a landslide barring any kind of major economical disaster.

        1. You need a proofreader.

          1. Says Dumbfuck Hihnsano, who desperately needs to post on here despite his original account and several sockpuppet accounts being banned.

          2. Just arrived to site. There is always a self appointed grammar police on every site, who ignores the argument in lieu of superior irrelevance. As Jimmy Hoffa says in Hoffa; We talking words here, D’Ally? “

            1. So you agree he screwed up and needs a proofreader (which could be him.)

              Umm, he said the “prog” supported adding a citizenship question on the census … a laughable error in itself… but the “prog” ALSO pushed the idea that it would be unconstitutional!

              (I’m pulling your chain, to ridicule YOUR blunder that HIS fuckup had anything to do with grammar.)

              If I say “freedom is the same as slavery” … instead of “freedom is NOT the same as slavery” … would you call that a grammatical error .. or just sloppy (and possibly ignorant)?

              Sadly typical of the folks who use “prog.”

    4. I don’t believe they have the discipline to eliminate the Electoral College. Progressives are too quick to be diverted by shiny objects. I am more concerned they will Gerrymander key districts to continue their hold on power. I am more concerned that they have destroyed real liberal arts education in this country and armed with hate speech laws will kill open debate in the proverbial “town square”. Obama made it clear his ultimate aim was to eliminate the balance of power and those trying to attribute those behaviors to Trump apparently were sleeping from 2008-2016.

      1. I am more concerned they will Gerrymander key districts to continue their hold on power

        Instead of Republicans doing that … which is overwhelming in many states.

        The concept is tested by comparing the percentages of each party, in the legislature and among the voters. It’s undeniable.

  4. Progressives won’t like it when they aren’t the majority in a mob rule state. Wait until they understand how it works out when they are the majority.

    1. I see at least four on the right, here, beating their chests for “will of the people.” But that’s tribalism.

  5. advance a more expansive vision of democratic freedom, in which Americans have inalienable economic rights as well as inalienable political and civil ones,” Bouie writes

    Nothing could be worse for America than this other than a hostile takeover by a foreign power.

    1. My first reaction to “advance a more expansive vision of democratic freedom” was, “What, Democratic People’s Republic isn’t enough adjectives for you?”

      1. Actually, I think it’s supposed to be “People’s Democratic Socialist Republic”…

    2. I see nothing wrong with strong protections for property rights and freedom to contract…oh wait, those are not what they mean by “economic rights” , are they?

      1. We don’t know that, so it would be wrong to assume so.

  6. “You know what the problem with judges is? They have way too much respect for the rights of the individual. We need more mob rule in this country.”

    Frightening words when you boil them down.

    1. Is there something about being judge that automatically makes them respect individual rights over mob rule?

      Currently they seem to favor corporate rights over most other considerations.

      1. It might seem that way to irrational people, yes.

      2. Tony is still struggling with the “personhood” of corporations, a necessary concept (allowing corporations to be sued in courts of law) in effect since about 1900. Maybe he thinks the janitor at the plant should be sued for contaminating food products, for instance?

        1. Can I both understand that concept and not be in favor of maximum corporate rights at the expense of people’s rights?

          1. What expenses are you referring to? Which rights have you lost because people chose to form a corporation?

            1. I’d like to see an answer to that question.

              The funny thing about the objections to corporate personhood is that, as someone mentioned above, it is the thing that allows corporations to be held accountable for bad actions and to be sued. Do they really think it would be better if they had to locate the particular individuals who are responsible and then hope that they have enough money to pay damages?

            2. *Pinches your cheeks*

              You guys are too cute for words.

              Rights are entitlements to do things or be free from things, invented by the government. In many cases, the Supreme Court invents them.

              The whole point of forming a corporation is to get goodies from the government that you wouldn’t otherwise have, such as limited liability. The Court has been increasingly giving constitutional rights to corporations that no sane person ever believed was prudent. The most recent was giving them religious rights. Corporations. Some scholars think next is 2nd amendment rights. God knows what that could entail.

              Corporations aren’t people; they are government entities that exist on paper to serve a social function. I’m not clear why they are even permitted in a strict libertarian worldview.

              1. I’ll believe that corporations aren’t people when progressives stop bitching about all the things they do.

                1. Can my favorite chair be a person? My cat? The concept of fabulousness?

                  It’s not a person because it’s not a freaking person. You know what a person is, don’t you?

                  1. Corporations are not people. Their owners are.
                    Your car is not a person. You are. Does a law against your car affect just the car, or your ownership?.

                    Your chair is not a person. You are. Same question.
                    Your cat is not a person. You are. Same question.
                    Concepts are not people … but cats and chairs don’t have concepts; only people do.

                    Anything else?

                  2. That’s like saying “a legislature isn’t people because it’s not people.”

                    Actually, yes it is.

              2. ‘Rights are entitlements’

                Spoken like a true totalitarian.

                Fuck off Tony.

                1. Time for a thoughtful response … by a libertarian. (gasp)

                  1) Without limited liability, the Industrial Age would have stalled over a century ago. Tell us, Tony, why anyone would ever buy stock in General Motors, if they could be sued for things they had no control of, and no knowledge of.

                  2) We do tax corporate profits twice. No other country does that. First to the corporate entity. Then again, when the income is merely distributed to owners. That’s like taking a withholding tax out of your pay check, then taxing it again when you deposit it.

                  3) Corporations are not people, but their shareholders are. My car is not a person, but I am!

                  4) Why should shareholders be taxed much more highly than any other business owner, including partnerships? Are you aware, even remotely, that the corporate income tax was repealed for all but the largest corporations, who provide the best wages and benefits — even worse on large manufacturers, when DEMOCRATS increased the tax on capital investment and lengthened the tax write-off — claiming they were (cough, cough) “closing corporate -loopholes?” Were large manufacturers the best-paid union jobs — until Democrats destroyed so many of those jobs (1986)?

                  Anything else?

                  1. I assume you meant that for Tony and not me. Since I pretty much agree with all that.

                    1. Emphasis added

                      Spoken like a true totalitarian.
                      Fuck off Tony.

                      Time for a thoughtful response … by a libertarian. (gasp)
                      …. (all that followed)

        2. 1900? Try 1819. SCOTUS ruled the state of NH couldn’t take over a private college in Dartmouth College v. Woodward. Read up on it.

          1. Totally irrelevant to his point. (That had nothing to do with so-called “personhood” and was based on the Contracts Clause of the Constitution.)

      3. Corporations are just a group of people working together. You know using that while right of association found in the 1a.

        1. 1A nothing to do with that. When I “associate” with my drinking buddies, does that mean we cannot be individually liable for anything we do as a group?

          Corporations provide limited liability, or else nobody would EVER invest in (say) General Motors. And those owner/shareholders cannot be held personally liable for actions and decisions they had no part in, and no knowledge of,

          Got it?

      4. You are so fucking retarded you probably need a picture book instruction manual to breathe.

    2. Mob rule is certainly the aim of many Libertarians in love with anarchy and Noam Chomsky.

      1. … Or with Ron Paul.

  7. Jamelle Bouie sounds like a dope. I doubt the people shaping American progress will devote much attention to his observations.

    1. I’m confused – is Bouie one of the inferior left-behinders? Some home-schooled hick who happened to slip his opinion into the precincts of the New York Times?

      Or do progressives have a No True Scotsman problem? I can only hope you apply your expertise to inform us which progressives are True Scotsmen and which of them are phonys.

      1. My own expertise, over several decades, has provided ample proof that progressives and the alt-right are equally culpable, equally manipulated and now obsolete.

        1. I can easily define Progressives but what really is the Alt Right?

          1. Largely, those who says they can easily define progressives. Or “proggies.” Or “the left.” Or … accuses others of being True Scotsmen, by being … a True Scotsman.

            Groupthink. Bigotry. Easily manipulated by the political elites.

            1. None of that is clear. Not at all.

              1. whoooooooooooosh

    2. I doubt anyone will stop celebrating when you finally blow your fucking brains out you inbred knuckle dragging hick.

      1. The maturity of The Authoritarian Right?

  8. Does this buffoon realize that without the “judicial review“ that he despises so much, both abortion and the sale of contraceptives would still be illegal, and segregated public schools would still be legal? In each case, “judicial fiat” overruled the “will of the majority.” And does he realize that his position is virtually the same as Robert Bork’s?

    If Donald Trump has a superpower, it is the ability to cause other people to lose their minds.

    1. Are you saying it’s contagious?

      1. Clearly. It’s infected us all.

        1. But how were our minds doing before Trump came on the scene?

          1. Depends on how one voted.

      2. Tony, you’re the living proof! Yes! It’s contagious. Seek help immediately.

        1. tony should be taken to the pound immediately. Then they can put him down.

    2. Not cause, but cause to be revealed.

      He’s a lot like Toto with the curtain.

      1. Is he house trained?

    3. I suspect a lot of the things you list would have happened legislatively by now.

  9. The court needs to be bigger. I once read somewhere that 17 was an optimal number. Congress needs to be bigger too. The presidency could thus be smaller.

    1. Peter Dinklage for President!

      1. Tits and wine for everyone!

    2. I knew you were dumb, but I had no idea just HOW dumb you really were.

      How does expanding the number of Justices, or increasing the number of Reps, increase the power of either SCOTUS or Congress? It just increases the number of votes needed to win an argument in either Congress or the SCOTUS, you dope.

      FYI- Congress used to be A LOT smaller. Didn’t change their power, though. That happened when judges had a strange look at the Interstate Commerce Clause.

      1. More people in the House means there are more people you have to convince that your argument is sound. Also, it makes it less likely that one interest can buy the majority vote, although not impossible.

        1. Your argument might work in a scenario where each person making a decision is making it based on their own self-interest but it fails when that person is making it as a representative of others.

          What ‘more people’ in a legislative body actually does is reduce the power of the individual to steer things in a direction that reflects the interests of their constituency which ends up rewarding loyalty to a party over loyalty to the people they represent.

          Senators have more individual power than congressmen. It is the reason they are more able to vote against their party, to trade their vote for things that benefit their state, or to continue representing a state that typically votes for the other party.

      2. It increases their legitimacy. If a president can appoint maybe a max of 3 justices in his tenure, but the pool is 17 instead of 9, that decreases his power over major national policy. A bigger Congress is more responsive to the people. I know you hate democracy, but at least Congress’s job is to represent constituents, I’m sure we agree.

        This should all be a good thing to any of you idiots. They’re not always gonna be Republicans you know.

        1. Do you think partisan judicial bashing will go away with a 9 – 8 split?

          “”I know you hate democracy,””

          I prefer republics. I think many of us do. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting what’s for lunch. People who love democracies do so because they think they will always be a wolf. Civil rights have been about giving power to the minority, not telling them to fuck off because the are in the minority.

          1. For the love of all that is holy under Christ the one true risen lamb of fuck, “democracy” is a catchall that stands in for various similar forms of government in which the people are the ultimate authority.

            Shit. Why do I have to explain this every fucking goddamn time? Are you that fucking stupid? Does it not occur to you that literally nobody on earth is actually advocating for a direct democracy, anywhere, ever?

            Fucking hell dude.

            1. Tony, you using the term democracy is just your stupidity. Stop getting upset. If you had any educational history you would know pure democracies have existed, and they had failures. If you had a dictionary youd know democracy is not a catch all.and that republics have a specific meaning.

              But continue proving your ignorance. You and Jeff would make a great ignorant couple by the way.

              1. But I’m not advocating for direct democracy, so why are we even talking about it?

                Normal people use “democracy” to refer to republican forms of government all the time. You know this. You’re just trying to distract because you know your beliefs are crap and the end result of them is authoritarianism.

              2. To be fair to Tony, “democracy” in common usage generally refers to systems of government with directly elected legislatures.

                1. Or, not, in the case of New England-style “town meeting” forms of local government. Once you change to “representative town meeting” or a board of Selecthumans, you are into republicanism. I take it the schools don’t teach about Aristotle’s description of “mixed constitutions” any longer?

                  1. You allow no difference between a republic and a democracy.

          2. Imagine after you got out of school, you and two of your best friends decided to get an apartment together. You were all working at the same place too, at the beginning, all making the same amount of money. So you decided to split everything evenly (rent, groceries, utilities). And you decided that since you were all friends that decisions about the household would be made by a binding vote, majority rule.

            All goes well at first, and all the votes are unanimous.

            But after awhile, you get a better job and soon are making 10% more than your buddies. At the same time, their hours have been cut back and so they aren’t taking in as much as they were before. A vote is held, and 2-1 they decide that you should pay 10% more rent, and they will pay 5% less each. Recognizing that this is a tad unfair to you, they at least vote to give you the better bedroom.

            After awhile, you get a promotion (because you’re a good employee) and are earning twice what your buddies earn. One of your buddies gets fired for not showing up at work on time. Another 2-1 vote is cast deciding that you will have to pay his share of the rent until he gets another job. You’ve already got the nice bedroom, so no new concessions come your way. You begin to wonder if that roommate is really serious about getting a job.

            Later, you’ve found an even better job, one that recognizes the value in the degree you got (you took night classes and worked during the day). By now, you’re pretty rich compared to your buddies. They’re both out of work now, it’s a tough economy, you know, but they’ve got 99 weeks of unemployment checks. You shudder when they manage to find out how much you make, knowing a 2-1 vote is coming, and sure enough you are now on the hook for all the rent. Your buddies promise to use their UI checks to pay for their own groceries, though.

            99 weeks later, another 2-1 vote forces you to pay all the rent, all the utilities, buy all the groceries, and to provide $250 each month to each roommate.

            It has occurred to you that the only way out of this situation is to quit your job, and thus restore equality, hoping that now with everyone in the same boat your roommates will be compelled to rejoin the workforce.

            But by yet another 2-1 vote you are forced to return to work.

            That’s democracy.

            1. How perceptive you are, mpercy. However, the wisdom you can easily see is quite “mperc”eptible to most. “Y” is that?

            2. No it isn’t.

              And what alternative do you propose? You guys never get around to that part.

              1. When it comes to government of a nation. How about a Constitutional Republic?

                1. So what do we disagree about? I already explained to you that “democracy” in common parlance, and my parlance, does not = “direct democracy.” As I said, nobody is arguing in favor of that. Not anywhere. Especially not since Brexit.

                  So address the real fucking point and stop acting like a child.

                  1. Your parlance is for idiots then.

                  2. Without judicial review, it is not a constitutional Republic

            3. You retain the freedom to leave — your apartment or the United States. And since you reject and ridicule ” consent of the governed,” and “will of the people,” when are you leaving?

              Your fallacy assumes they have the power to stop you from leaving, thus not a democracy at all. A common error on today’s right.

              1. That’s if our “Republic of Three Roommates” enshrines a bill of rights that includes, here, the right to move out of the apartment. Republics aren’t based on the momentary consent of the population, which can change day by day, except insofar as that population might take up arms and revolt if misgoverned, but also on moral, economic or military reasoning and precedent. The US Bill of Rights was ratified by the state legislatures, not directly by the people. So we have consent of the governed as filtered through those we elect to represent us, and not rule by plebiscite.

                We also have courts that make decisions according to written constitutions and case law that further limit the will of the people by overturning some of their elected legislatures’ acts, in order to give a bill of rights force. And armies or police we hope will respect our rights, which they’re more likely to do if their recruits grew up in stable home environments and received educations. Ever try Honduras as a “democracy” to live in? Government’s not a simple affair and never will be.

                1. Under the moral concept, will of the people, those people chose to create a representative government. As is their right.

                  THE major fallacy is, as Jefferson stated, consent of the governed cannot exist unless that consent comes from the GOVERNED, not consent of the long dead. He wanted a new Constitutional Convention every 19-20 years. He called that a generation, but arrived at it from how long the Confederacy had to be replaced,

                  How can a free government be mandated on anyone, without their consent? Likewise all federal deficits MUST be repaid every 20 years. Instead of rolling it over to our grandkids … a tax increase they never voted on. He called what we now have governing by force, not by right. — which causes their minds to explode

            4. mpercy, you’ve been following the United Nations, I see

        2. Tony, you have the weakest intellect of any commenter. You have no business calling anyone an idiot. However, everyone else should feel obliged to call you one.

          You are a a progtard clown, and a moron. Best you go drink your Drano.

          1. Pot. Kettle. Black.

            Left – Right = Zero

            1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s IQ = Zero

        3. OIC,

          So, if SCOTUS is expanded to 11, and President Pence appoints Pryor and Amy Comely Barrett, and Cocaine Mitch confirms, then Roe is overturned, and Citizens United is upheld, that will be viewed as More legitimate. They will become SUPER DUPER PRECEDENTS, and no dissention will be expected

          1. Yeah, who cares about unalienable rights these days?
            On either bank of the swamp.

    3. There is nothing magic about 9 Justices. I believe it has been bigger.
      But packing the court for ideological reasons seems like a terrible precedent to set.

      1. I agree. McConnell should not have set that precedent.

        1. That wasn’t court packing. Almost the opposite, in fact.

          1. It was egregiously changing the rules/norms in order to get an ideological ally on the court. Then of course he changed the rules back when it favored him.

            1. Congress’s consent is needed in order to appoint a new justice to SCOTUS, but the Constitution does not compel Congress’ consent.

              1. The constitution did not intend for only Republicans to get to appoint justices. Stop defending that evil toad. Do you guys even realize when you’re doing that? By that I mean hot, floppy butt work for the stupidest political party in the Western world?

                1. Who ever said only Republicans get to appoint? It is a two step process dumb fuck. How do you get this wrong when it was literally just explained to you? If you weren’t so ignorant you would know this isnt even the first time a nomination didnt get a vote.

                  My God Tony, it is like you breath in ignorance and exhale stupidity.

                  1. But neither of us is under the impression that you wouldn’t be throwing an intense bloody tantrum if a Democrat did what McConnell did under such obvious false pretenses.

                    1. You mean if they followed the rule proposed by Joe Biden back when Bush the Elder was president? Congress has always had the authority to hold votes if and when they want. Nobody can compel them to vote on an issue, bill, or nomination.

                    2. Chippah, Tony expects that a democrat should not be restrained by rules. Only republicans have to follow rules.

                      It’s the progtard way.

                    3. And if Garland had gotten a hearing and the Republicans simply voted against like everyone knows they would, you’d instead be crying that he didn’t get a fair hearing. Ultimately you’re a partisan hack, everyone knows it, and rules only matter to you when they benefit Team Blue.

                    4. More proof.
                      Left – Right = Zero

              2. Not the Congress, the Senate.

                A president ignoring the advice AND CONSENT of the Senate for judicial appointments would trigger a constitutional crisis. See Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of CONUS.

            2. There were over a dozen nominations in history that did not get a vote in the Senate. While your ignorance seems to be the norm for the left, not voting on a presidential nomination isnt unique. It has happened often.

              1. For what purpose did they not get a vote?
                And who, other than McConnell, was so total a pathetic hypocrite on the reason?

                While your ignorance seems to be the norm for the left,

                No worse than yours.

            3. It was egregiously changing the rules/norms in order to get an ideological ally on the court. Then of course he changed the rules back when it favored him.

              You mean like Bork and Thomas?

              1. Were they denied a hearing?

                1. You mean the glorified struggle sessions?

                  1. No, that’s not what he meant.
                    I score him the win.

      2. I believe it has been bigger.

        Guys always exaggerate the size of the Supreme Court.

        1. Bigger and blacker.

    4. You *read* something? Lemme guess, it was an explainer from a “non-biased” source like Salon, Vox or the Daily Kos?

      Did it come with a pretty pie chart?

      1. If I said I read it on Sean Hannity’s blog, would you believe every word of it?

        1. Haven’t chatted in a while. Disappointed you’re still stuck in that sophomoric “everyone who isn’t for giving my preciousssssss governmentses unlimited power to run every detail of their lives must be a Republican” loop.

          Grow up and recognize “us vs. them” is an ignorant excuse for a philosophy.

          1. Stop telling me that only Republican facts are real facts, when they are in fact the fake facts, and I’ll stop accusing you of being Republicans.

            1. “fake facts”? Are those ones you can only recognize if you “believe” in science hard enough?

              1. A properly educated person who keeps himself regularly informed doesn’t need to “believe” anything about settled facts.

                1. Then why are you constantly harping about “believing” in science? You obviously feel that science, which is grounded in data — i.e., “facts” — is a belief system, not an objective measure of reality.

                  Which explains your nonsense about “Republican facts” and “fake facts”. You think facts are subjective. Just like a toddler believing in Santa Claus.

                  1. Also explains your “global warming will make the planet so hot it will kill off all life, even single-cells, because Venus” stupidity. You made that “fact” up to justify your fears and you don’t care that it’s completely unsupportable. It’s a fact to you, and that’s all that matters.

                    1. I think the immediate problem is with what happens to the human species. Once it gets to microorganisms, there won’t be anyone left to care.

                      The CO2 concentration in higher than it’s been in at least 3 million years. Measured fact. Any cause for concern? *Knocks on your head* Hello?

                    2. *Knocks on your head, only a lot harder* Hello? We’re discussing your tenuous grasp on what constitutes a “fact”, and how that ignorance relates to your belief that people who don’t want precioussssss governmentses to control every facet of their lives must all be Republicans.

                      No idea why you thought throwing in something about CO2 would be relevant.

                    3. You don’t know how CO2 is relevant to climate change?

                      There’s a whole google out there dude. There’s only so much I can do.

                    4. Ummm… we were near a historical low in carbon as percent of the atmosphere just 200 years ago. The carbon percent has been as much as double current measurements and life flourished.

                      Temperatures are increasing at .1 deg a decade but models have been predicting .3. Thinking models are wrong while you worship them. So what is this about facts and education again?

                    5. You’re not just stupid, you’re dangerous.

                      What “life”? Was that human life? Well, was it? Because that’s what I care about. We kind of depend on the status quo, as ecosystems go.

                    6. What “life”? Was that human life? Well, was it? Because that’s what I care about. We kind of depend on the status quo, as ecosystems go.

                      Solipsism is not how ecosystems function.

                  2. Tony, there is not a word or concept that you are capable of illuminating for anyone here. You are a weak minded dullard. Yet you think you are somehow logical and understand things like climate science. None of this is true, and in reality you are a buffoonish joke.

                    You should commit suicide. Best thing for you really. Your commentary is going nowhere.

                    1. I can only aspire to the bitingly insightful pearls of wisdom you drop with every post.

                    2. Good. Then we can expect yo auto drink that Drano straight away, right?

                2. A properly education person doesn’t rely on a generalization fallacy.

                  1. Well said.

                  2. Really properly educated people don’t go around lecturing others with Logic 101 vocab words.

                    1. Right. They typically let the others wallow in their own ignorance. Speaking of which, TTFN brother.

                    2. Of course they do. If you count a 10 word sentence as a lecture.

                      Apply Logic 101 and you would catch far less shit from people on this site.

                    3. I was under the impression this was a political discussion board, not a never-ending test of formal logic propositions.

                      It’s all so tedious.

                    4. Politics is formal logic dumbass. Or should be. Not the appeal to emotion post modern thinking you and your fellow retards rely on.

                    5. When I call you a whimpering toady of an obviously corrupt politician while sitting on the high horse of an antigovernment philosophy, that’s not me making a formally logical argument, but it is a point I’m making nonetheless.

                      Where can I go where there are both a) real libertarians who don’t worship politicians and b) real libertarians who don’t worship politicians who read school texbooks after 8th grade?

                    6. Properly educated?!! HAHA Dude you are one of the stupidest, most poorly educated morons ever to breathe. You’re a fucking idiot. Everything you write is a testament to what a pathetic moron you are, convinced that your ability to spew middle school worthy cliches is a sign of your “education.” What are you, the most educated rube in food is inbred Hicksville retard town where you grew up? Did that give you some ridiculous belief that you’re intelligent? You’re a fucking idiot.

    5. I once heard somewhere that 1 is the loneliest number.

    6. “Congress needs to be bigger too. The presidency could thus be smaller.”

      And you’ve been advocating this ever since January 20, 2017.

      1. I agree with the little lunatic on this one (the first part, at least).

        A significantly larger Congress (say, 3000 or so) might make it easier for smaller parties to gain seats, since D/R parties couldn’t outspend in every single district.

        1. Staff bloat and pensions will bankrupt us in weeks.

          “I imagine a future where everyone is a Representative for fifteen minutes”

        2. The first amendment proposed for ratification, to become the Bill of Rights in 1789, but not the first one ratified, was one that had a Representative in the House for every 50,000 persons.
          That would make the House currently be more than 6400 strong.
          There is an argument as to whether that amendment was subsequently ratified, as was the second one offered, which became part of the Constitution as the 27th Amendment, 203 years after it was proposed. http://www.boldtruth.com/

          1. You just explained why that amendment failed.

  10. Buttigieg is simply acknowledging the consequences of the Trump administration’s judicial appointments. That being, the left has effectively lost their stranglehold on the judiciary.

    Progressives only gave a fig about Marbury V Madison so long as it worked in their favor, same as their approaches to free speech, and free association.

    And blacklisting was only bad when it hurt communists.

  11. Do I really have to read dumb shit like that NYT idiocy just to prove that I don’t live in an echo chamber? What a horrible thought. When I’m I allowed to simply write something off as transparently stupid and still feel as though I’m credibly engaging with counter-arguments?

  12. So… now the far-left joins the far-right in opposing a check on legislative power. That’s where America is heading. fascism vs socialism, despite a voiceless majority who are neither.

    Amend the Constitution to require 2/3 approval for SCOTUS.
    And while we’re at it — the same 2/3 for all major legislation — especially taxes, spending and the budget.

    Or … follow what JEFFERSON intended and convene a new constitutional convention … every 20 years. Consent of the governed — not consent of the long-dead.

    1. And while we’re at it — 1/3 to repeal legislation.

      1. Minority rule is authoritarian. Even Ayn Rand accepted Jefferson’s “consent of the governed” … and will of the people, even on taxes

        1. “Minority rule is authoritarian”

          What part of repeal legislation did you not understand?

          1. Do you realize you sad that in public???
            How is passing a bill to repeal legislation any different than passing a bill to create or expand legislation? (That was rhetorical)

    2. 2/3 for SCOTUS to approve – of what?

      1. For judicial appointments.

    3. Hey, Dumbfuck Hihnsano remembered the password for one of his sockpuppets!

  13. I never understood this fetish for democracy. For fuck’s sake, gang rape is democracy. There’s nothing virtuous about having more numbers.

    1. “How many divisions does the Pope have?”

      1. How many gang rapes has the Pope participated in?

        1. Um … uh … actually, I’ll need to get back to you on that.

      2. He’s got those Swiss Guards. That’s about it.

        1. So the Swiss cheese and watches are safe. Great!

  14. “Progressives have a crucial task ahead of them—… to reclaim the Constitution and advance a more expansive vision of democratic freedom”

    Careful what you ask for, Jamelle.

    1. Reclaim the Constitution. That’s all you need to read to realize she’s a moron.

  15. DAMN TRUMP FOR…making progressives decide to burn everything down because he hurts their fee-fees.

    1. Not everyone can be a model of stoicism and emotional maturity as Trump.

      1. Take you, for example…

      2. Nobody said Trump was mature. Fuck, he won the Presidency to spite Obama.

  16. Just remember this the next time some ultra-prog tries to wrap themselves in the flag and talk about patriotism and how much they love the country, too.

    They love everything about it, except Article I, Article II, The Bill of Rights, the Electoral College, the ratification process, the citizenry, the history, I don’t even think they care for the dirt that much….

    1. Kill them with machetes! The cockroaches!

    2. Ron Paul is an ultra-prog?

      1. Be quiet, Dumbfuck Hihnsano, before you get bullycided again.

  17. From the NYT article – “as Andrew Jackson argued…” The fact that Bouie invoked Jackson as a positive example of presidential usurpation of judicial review is pretty horrifying. Does he not remember the Trail of Tears, or is that his new plan for Georgia Republicans?

    1. The guy that perfected the Spoils System, that gave us Civil Service instead.

      He probably watched an old West Wing episode – “Andrew Jackson had a great wheel of cheese..”

  18. I prefer the New York Times with the Gatling guns mounted on its roof.

  19. When has the Supreme Court been the final word?

    When Jackson vetoed the Bank Bill as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court didn’t override the veto, even though they thought bank bills were constitutional.

    Nowadays, people appoint the Justices they think will carry out their policies, then bow down and pledge to obey when the Justices implement the policies they were appointed to implement.

    So even under the modern regime of simultaneously working the machine behind the giant wizard head, then bowing down and promising to do what the wizard head decrees, the idea of the wizard head having the final word is simply a fiction which only the gullible are expected to swallow.

    1. But that’s the rub, right? There’s always been a legislative mechanism to reverse SCOTUS. But it’s hard. And it involves super extra consensus. It’s just simply easier when the right dictator is in charge.

      1. I’m saying when they don’t like what the Justices are doing, they change the justices. Then they write op-eds about how the decisions of the Supreme Court are The Law of the Land.

        1. Who are the “they” you are referring to?

          1. Republicans and Democrats.

        2. SUPERPRECEDENT!!!!

    2. “When Jackson vetoed the Bank Bill as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court didn’t override the veto, even though they thought bank bills were constitutional.”

      That argument makes no sense.

      Just because something is Constitutional does not mean it is mandatory. It still must be enacted in the proper manner. Including surviving a veto from POTUS. SCOTUS has never claimed authority to override a veto.

      1. This shows that the Pres operated, in that case, under his own view of what the Constitution meant, and the Supreme Court couldn’t overrule his interpretation.

        1. And what is wrong with that? The POTUS can veto a bill for any damned reason he/she likes. Unconstitutional is one of the better reasons .

    3. The final word on the constitutionality of a law or government action.

  20. And probably after he wrote this piece Bouie will write one complaining that Trump is “destroying our political norms.”

    1. WE COULDN’T PROVE HIS INNOCENCE!

  21. I would guess she praises SCOTUS every time rule against Trump and thinks their ruling should stand.

    Indoctrination over intellect.

  22. TDS is helluva virus.

    1. Hey, even the lefty media could barely contain itself calling him “presidential” after he made it through a D-Day script without calling any world leaders assholes.

      Then he got in front of a cemetery and started the name calling, but he didn’t have a script that time, and we have to give the guy a break. We’re just libertarians. What do we care if the most powerful government official in the world is unstable and vulgar?

      1. I rather enjoy him poking fun at world leaders. Macron deserves every bit of scorn he gets directed at him. Heck, I’d pinch his nipples and flick his ears if I had the chance. Same with Merkel. Minus the nipple pinching because that would be….moving on….

        A good number of them preside over shit holes and are pointless anyway. Like I care if the Dictator for Life of Banana And Apricot Republic has his feelings-feelings hurt.

        Oh my God….I’ve turned into a monster!

        Thanks Trump!

        1. There is not a single Republican-run city in America that is better than London. And I thought France was on his good side ever since he had a big lollipop and saw a neato parade? As for Pelosi, he’s obviously afraid of her.

          1. Yeh, I’m sure he’s afraid of an elitist who slurs.

            Sure Tony whatever you say including about London.

            1. He fucking slurs! And not just on doctored videos.

              And all of his appliances are gilded!

              What’s with this “elitist” crap? His entire fucking brand for half a century is “elite.” Is your problem with “elite” liberals the fact that they are educated?

              My god, the absurdity of it all.

              1. ‘My god, the absurdity of it all.’

                Yes, I suppose to a weak person with a stunted subnormal mind, such as yourself, that might be your point of view.

            2. Now tell me how terrible Pelosi is for wishing to “lock him up” in a private conversation.

              Go on, give me the good stuff. I’m good for it man.

              1. Now tell me how terrible Pelosi is for wishing to “lock him up” in a private conversation.

                To be fair, she was probably drunk at the time.

                1. Public to millions, versus private.
                  Thank you for playing. Please select a lovely parting gift.

                  1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s parting gift will be another sockpuppet banning.

                    1. Now you say — again — there is no difference between a statement made in private, to an audience of cohorts … versus a public statement, to over 100 million, by the President.

          2. There is not a single Democrat Republican run city in America that is better than Calcutta London.

            Did I do it right??

            1. If by “it” you mean correctly spelling adjectival forms of words, then no.

          3. There is not a single Republican-run city in America that is better than London.

            The Democrat-run cities are covered in human feces, needles, and are now typhus vectors.

          4. Every republican run city in America is better than London. What a stupid thing for even you to say.

            Just another reason you should drink Drano Tony. MAong so many others.

      2. What you mean “we,” Kemo Sabe?

        Tony shows no sign of being a libertarian of any sort.

        1. Nor do you.

          1. Why would you defend Tony?

            1. By saying your tribe is just as bad????
              That defends Tony??????????

  23. To stop fascism, we must have totalitarianism

  24. Do you people imagine yourselves lined up, perhaps scooting along on your knees, as Trump presents his member to each of you in turn for you to gobble with passionate ecstasy?

    Or is it more of a free-for-all, where you all go at him like a pack of horny penis-sucking wolves?

    1. I imagine us lined up, perhaps in front of a hastily-dug trench, making way for the new socialist regime.

      1. So it’s your insane paranoia that causes you to support a dementia-addled vulgar disaster as president who is slapping new taxes on you left and right?

        Maybe get someone to work on that?

        1. So it’s your belief that the world is a giant dichotomy that makes you assume I support Trump?

          1. slapping new taxes on you left and right?

            —–

            I thought Tony loves to tax, regulate, and control.

            1. I just like things to work properly.

              1. So what’s Baltimore’s excuse?

          2. You made it a choice between Trump and Stalinism. Do you think there’s a third way? Weld, perhaps?

  25. “After decades of railing against ‘activist judges,'” Bouie complains, “Republicans are poised to reverse the hard-won gains of activists and ordinary people through judicial fiat.”

    Leftists always project their hatreds and crimes on the Right.

    The Left’s “hard won” gains were won through their judicial authoritarianism which the Right lacked the stones to fight. The new originalists would reverse that judicial authoritarianism not through “fiat”, but through actually following the law.

    Arguably, the Right *should* go just as authoritarian as the Left now that they have the judiciary.

    One way ceasefire is surrender.
    One way rule of law is subjection.

    The Left will *never* cease their judicial authoritarianism if they never have to *pay a price* for it.

  26. Sounds like a stupid article: democrats have a much larger chance of defeating Trump in an election then trying the constitutional do-over required to get rid of judicial review.

    And that’s why he’s bringing it up: Trump changed SCOTUS for a generation, maybe more. Hell, lots of progressives will die before they ever see a substantially different SCOTUS. And they’re pissed. So of course, time to amend the constitution.

    While you’re at it, abolish the electoral college and the senate.

    Good luck!

    1. Its actually pretty close to the same chance, actually, since they’re going to achieve the constitutional do-over by packing the Court and simply amending it be judicial fiat. So all they really need is their guy in the White house, and a bare majority in both chambers of Congress.

      And it won’t be so bare a majority after they get done naturalizing all the illegal aliens, and turning all the territories into states. Which they’re currently discussing doing.

      1. There is no such thing as “judicial fiat.”
        Learn their function.

  27. “Bouie thinks that ditching the principle of judicial review enunciated in Marbury v. Madison will help progressives pursue their policy agenda.”
    Well, of course. It’s clear that no one in either main party is concerned about executive fiat when their guy is at the helm. The power of the presidency has already ballooned due to Congress abdicating their responsibilities. Take the court out of the equation and there’s no stopping the imperial presidency.

  28. It is so neat and clean with no Constitution/judicial review.

    All you need is the legislature to pass an “Enabling Act.”

    Then the Führer can rule by decree.

    1. He’s already trying to.

  29. The problem, Bouie says, is not that the Court is too partisan or political but that it has the power to override the will of the people

    That’s the point. They are supposed to judge legislation against the governments founding charter.

    will help progressives pursue their policy agenda.

    Indeed any constructionist view of the document concludes that the proggie agenda is unconstitutional.

    He does not pause to consider that it might also have consequences he would not like.

    They never do.

    1. Now explain that to Ron Paul, but be very patient and go very slowly.

    2. The problem, Bouie says, is not that the Court is too partisan or political but that it has the power to override the will of the people

      The will of the people in CA with regards to gay marriage was expressed multiple times before it was overriden by the courts at proggie behest. I wonder how Bouie feels about that.

      1. The will of the people is inferior to the Constitution. Ask any conservative, if you can find any these days.

        Or read the 14th Amendment. Then the 9th. Then the definitions of “equal” and “unalienable” and “God-given”

        Is a proggie the flip side of a contard?

  30. that intellectual dilettantes like Bouie actually exist is terrifying

  31. “Depending on who happens to be in power, legislators might enact Bouie’s policy agenda, or they might endorse torture, approve warrantless searches, abolish the presumption of innocence, close down newspapers that criticize them, ”

    “Or”? I thought that was his agenda.

    1. Is the sky still falling???

  32. J’amai BooHoo?
    Who takes that clown seriously?
    He’s written the same TDS column 725 times since Trump won.

    1. Why should anyone take you seriously?
      TDS = ODS.

  33. You know why nobody takes Libertarianism seriously? Because when you seriously have a chance to advocate for limited, Constitutional government, you make a blatant partisan asspull like asserting the 14th establishes blanket birthright citizenship.

    1. You seem confused on what a libertarian us .,. likely because you are obviously authoritarian. By what right to you dare to personally overrule the Constitution of the United States, which states, clearly.

      All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. I have heard some authoritarians scream SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF … which means they personally mandate that criminal and traffic law cannot be used against the native-born child of a non-citizen. Brilliant!

      Students of liberty know the 14th required states to honor birthright citizenship, since it already existed at the federal level, and in several centuries of the common law. It’s there to assure citizenship for ex-slaves.

      The vast majority of libertarians are NOT anti-government, one main reason that 91% of them reject the libertarian label — per that survey by a professional pollster, commissioned by those goddamn statists at The Cato Institute

      You MAY be too extreme for even Ayn Rand, who strongly defended Jefferson’s “consent of the governed.”

      Here’s the difference. Authoritarians would repeal Medicaid tomorrow, and even bellow about it.

      Libertarians accept the will of the people — are educated, thus we know people have willingly paid for indigent health care since the 1500s, right up to LBJ. Thus, we NEED to show how and why private charity worked better, which requires a transition method and period. Not as easy as bellowing, but …. liberty cannot be defended by pussies.

      Anti-govs are a major threat to liberty, by empowering the Bernies and Elizabeths. If radical progs are the only one claiming to provide what people have always been willing to pay for … and consent of the governed is a bedrock principle of individual liberty …. that’s why progressives have been kicking our ass for decades … and Trumpcare made Obamacare more popular than ever.

      You may enjoy it, but I’m tired of losing.

      the Cato Institute.

  34. I never saw Ms. Bouie’s articles complaining about judicial review when a single homosexual judge overturned California’s Proposition 8 (banning gay marriage), passed by millions of people.

    I also never saw her article complaining about judicial review when the rogue Federal judge in Hawaii stopped the travel ban on specious constitutional grounds (later overturned unanimously by SCOTUS).

    Like most leftists, they cannot envision losing, and attribute it to the rules of the game. So they want to change the rules.

    Believe me, if Trump said “You Democrats are correct; let’s add 4 justices to the Supreme Court. I’ll nominate them tomorrow.”, the screaming and wailing from the institutional left would deafen everyone from here to Mars.

    1. (lol) Defends judicial review BY ATTACKING IT!
      Rogue judge!

      Left – Right = Zero

Please to post comments