Search results

"Lyndsey Graham 2.0", as I've seen his change in attitude called.

You misunderstand. I mean a President going all in on "judicial review is nowhere in the Constitution and therefore isn't actually a thing." As opposed to merely ignoring a decision he disliked, like Jackson did.

Honestly, I've wondered for a while what things would look like if a President had gone to the mat over the issue early in the Republic's history.

Well, now some are advocating that if the Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives, it can just be ignored. All I can say is, boy, wouldn't that be a can of worms. And they're fools if they think it would all go one way.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but my response to that would be thus; "First, assuming she did any such thing (which I rather doubt), it's a result of her being relentlessly propagandized by you, not a conclusion she reached on her own. Second, who gives a flying fuck what a...

*rubs eyes and sighs* I was talking about court cases in general, not about the election being disputed.

You misunderstand. I wasn't talking about Trump getting another Justice on the court; I was referring to the fact that if Roberts sides with the leftists now it's a 4-4 deadlock (and the lower court decision stands), not a 5-4 victory for the leftists. Not ideal, but perhaps useful.

That's what I was going to say. Anyway, it's worth considering how this changes the dynamics of the Supreme Court, even without another Justice replacing Ginsburg.