Senate makes strong statement about who matters following peaceful protest at Kavanaugh's house

 

Laura Clawson

Daily Kos Staff

Tuesday May 10, 2022 · 10:06 AM MDT

RSS

PUBLISHED TO

• Laura Clawson
• Daily Kos
• Blue Country Gazette Blog
• Rim Country Gazette Blog
  

The Senate can move really fast when Republicans let it. On Monday night, the Senate used unanimous consent to pass a bill giving security to family members of Supreme Court justices, an issue raised just over the weekend by protests outside the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Peaceful protests, mind you.

The House will also need to pass the Supreme Court Police Parity Act, but that seems unlikely to be a problem. Self-righteous outrage about the peaceful protests outside the homes of some extremist anti-abortion justices has been at critical levels, fueled by a baseless rumor that Justice Samuel Alito, the author of the draft opinion striking down Roe v. Wade, had been moved to an undisclosed location, along with his family, out of concern for their safety. That rumor—which should probably be considered disinformation—was spread aggressively by right-wing media outlets and pundits.

Oh, for heaven’s sake: 

southpaw

@nycsouthpaw

Per two senate sources, the Coons-Cornyn bill extending security for SCOTUS family members was "hotlined" for unanimous consent (i.e. emailed around to see if anyone had objections) last Thursday—which is before any of the demonstrations near Justices' homes had occurred, afaik.

12:25 PM · May 10, 2022

There is good reason to offer protection to federal judges and their families in some circumstances—and long before the Senate rushed to pass the Supreme Court Police Parity Act, there was a bill intended to partially address that. The Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act was named for the late son of Judge Esther Salas, who was murdered by someone angry about a case Salas had presided over. Salas’ husband was also shot and seriously injured. The Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act passed unanimously out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in December but hasn’t gotten a full Senate vote. This bill would make it harder for people to find out where judges live, and would, if Congress funded it, increase threat monitoring by marshals. Instead, it took a matter of hours for the Senate to move on additional protection for the Supreme Court.

This level of Senate concern for judges and their families also wasn’t on display when Donald Trump was attacking judge after judge after judge for rulings he disagreed with. For that matter, some of the Republicans so outraged at peaceful protests at the home of Supreme Court members are the same ones who’ve downplayed the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. But it’s not just politicians. “To picket a judge’s home is especially problematic. It tries to bring direct public pressure to bear on a decision-making process that must be controlled, evidence-based and rational if there is to be any hope of an independent judiciary,” the editorial board of The Washington Post moralizes. Yeah, guys, that ship sailed a while ago. What we’re talking about now is a draft opinion that leans on the legal writing of a 17th-century English jurist who pioneered the legal principle that men cannot rape their wives (even when they rape their wives), told juries to doubt other rape allegations, and sentenced women to death as witches. “Controlled, evidence-based and rational” is not happening, and it doesn’t help to pretend that it is.

Prominent politicians routinely face protests outside their homes. The right-wing members of the Supreme Court increasingly act as unelected politicians, so some protest is to be expected. Their actions have life-or-death consequences for millions of people and to pretend that they should be above any public response to that is unrealistic to the point of silliness. Of course, if there are identifiable threats to the justices or their families, they should receive appropriate protection—just as high-ranking politicians do. But the tone of outrage, the idea that the justices must be protected from any whiff of public accountability for what they impose on the people of this country, is a stale and offensive strategy.

It’s clearly been a terrifying, rowdy scene outside the justices’ houses:

Maryn McKenna

@marynmck

Journalists covering demonstrations in from of Alito’s house are being given wine and cheese by neighors (and key lime pie, in another post) and funny how the neighbors respect the legal right to peaceful protest more than the legal people do.

 

Independent reporter Talia Jane

@taliaotg

Replying to @taliaotg

Neighbors are giving me wine and cheese

 

southpaw

@nycsouthpaw

Per two senate sources, the Coons-Cornyn bill extending security for SCOTUS family members was "hotlined" for unanimous consent (i.e. emailed around to see if anyone had objections) last Thursday—which is before any of the demonstrations near Justices' homes had occurred, afaik.

12:25 PM · May 10, 2022

 

 Chad Loder

@chadloder

People are protesting outside Justice Kavanaugh's house. Someone said "But think of his neighbors" and Kavanaugh's neighbor replied "We ARE his neighbors. We organized the protest"

10:56 AM · May 8, 2022·Twitter for iPhone

Wouldn’t it be nice if those in power had 1% of the concern for the vulnerable people whose lives are affected by Supreme Court decisions that they did for the justices themselves?

Kavanaugh: "Oh my god, they're coming after me.  Maybe if I offer them a beer..."

TODAY WE MARCH: Leading Medical Journal Warns 'Women Will Die' if Supremes Overturn Roe

  Pro-choice activists protest outside the Supreme Court building. (photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)  

Dylan Stableford / Yahoo News 14 May 22

readersupportednews.org 

One of the world’s oldest and most well-known medical journals published an editorial on Thursday warning that if the U.S. Supreme Court were to confirm Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade, “women will die.”

“The fact is that if the U.S. Supreme Court confirms its draft decision, women will die,” the Lancet said in its editorial. “The Justices who vote to strike down Roe will not succeed in ending abortion, they will only succeed in ending safe abortion. Alito and his supporters will have women's blood on their hands.”

The 199-year-old journal argues that Alito’s “shocking, inhuman, and irrational” draft opinion “utterly fails to consider the health of women today who seek abortion.”

“Unintended pregnancy and abortion are universal phenomena. Worldwide, around 120 million unintended pregnancies occur annually,” the editorial stated. “Of these, three-fifths end in abortion. And of these, some 55% are estimated to be safe — that is, completed using a medically recommended method and performed by a trained provider. This leaves 33 million women undergoing unsafe abortions, their lives put at risk because laws restrict access to safe abortion services.”

In the United States, the Lancet notes, Black women have an unintended pregnancy rate double that of non-Hispanic white women and a maternal mortality rate almost three times higher than for white women.

“These sharp racial and class disparities need urgent solutions, not more legal barriers,” the editorial said.

“If the Court denies women the right to safe abortion,” the Lancet concluded, “it will be a judicial endorsement of state control over women — a breathtaking setback for the health and rights of women, one that will have global reverberations.”

The publication of the editorial comes amid nationwide protests by abortion rights advocates over the initial draft majority opinion, which was published by Politico earlier this month. The report suggested that the Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.

Polls show that most Americans would object to such a move.

According to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll, just 31% of U.S. adults say Roe should be overturned. In contrast, nearly twice as many Americans see abortion as “a constitutional right that women in all states should have some access to” (56%) and say the procedure should be legal in all or most cases (55%).

Hundreds of thousands of advocates for reproductive rights are expected to take part in demonstrations in dozens of U.S. cities on Saturday.

 

U.S. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries Gives Clarence and Ginni Thomas a Massive Tongue Lashing

 

U.S. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries.

Walter Einenkel

Daily Kos Staff

RSS

PUBLISHED TO

• Walter Einenkel
• Daily Kos Social
• DK Health
• Daily Kos Supreme Court Watch
• Blue Country Gazette Blog
• Rim Country Gazette Blog
  

There are different feelings and ideas about how various elected officials should talk and act about the leaked Supreme Court decision to overturn decades of settled law in Roe v. Wade. While the decision directly affects more than half of the population of the United States and most obviously affects reproductive rights, the ramifications are far-reaching and fundamentally theocratic in nature.

The Democrats in the Senate—sans Joe Manchin, who, along with his family, is a well-documented corrupt person—have come out swinging behind the voices of people like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and are calling for U.S. senators to put their name down for or against reproductive rights as well as women’s civil rights. The House of Representatives seems to be acting a lot less united and a lot more granularly.

On Wednesday during a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries decided to step out with a message to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his most recent anti-Constitutional bad take that protests at Supreme Court justices’ homes are an attempt to “bully” the court into making the more popular decision of not taking away the rights of more than half the country. Justice Clarence Thomas was quoted on Friday as having said he’s all hot and bothered about how the “respect” for institutions is “eroding.” He directly attacked protesters of the leaked Roe decision, saying they are clearly unable to “live with outcomes we don’t agree with.” Jeffries decided to talk directly to suspected sexual harasser Thomas about people who are unable to “live with outcomes” they “don’t agree with.”

And it was good stuff.

Jeffries didn’t mince words, going right for Thomas, saying that if he “really wants to deal with bullying in America, or this problem of people supposedly unwilling to accept outcomes that they don’t like, I’ve got some advice for Justice Thomas. Start in your own home.”

Ka-pow! Did he say what I think he just said? Yes. Yes indeed.

“Have a conversation with Ginni Thomas.” Virginia “Ginni” Thomas has long been a wildcard partisan hack who should have been a red enough flag to have forced Thomas to need to recuse himself from virtually every decision in front of the court. The recent news of how invested and involved the Supreme Court justice’s wife was in trying to get the election results overturned has blown most ethically minded people’s hair back.

Jeffries goes right to heart of the matter from here: “[Ginni Thomas] refused to accept the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election. Why? Because she didn’t like the outcome. And so instead, she tried to steal the election, overthrow the United States government, and install a tyrant. That’s bullying.” It is here that I will give one note of criticism to Jeffries and say that’s not simply “bullying,” that’s “sedition,” that’s a “coup d’etat,” that’s “fascism.” But, please go on, I’ve gotten another bag of popcorn!

“That’s being unwilling to accept an outcome because you don’t like you don’t like the results. Because the former, twice-impeached, so-called president of the United States of America lost legitimately to Joe Biden.” I’m back on board! “How did she respond? Instead, she said the Bidens should face a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay. On trumped up charges of sedition. You’ve got to be kidding me.”

And then Jeffries did what good orators do: He revved up the engines and drove home everything wrong with Clarence Thomas and his spouse Ginni. “And lastly, let me ask this question of Brother Thomas: Why are you such a hater? Hate on civil rights. Hate on women’s rights. Hate on reproductive rights. Hate on voting rights. Hate on marital rights. Hate on equal protection under the law. Hate on liberty and justice for all. Hate on free and fair elections. Why are you such a hater?”

Yes! More, please.

“And you think you can get away with it, escape public scrutiny, because you think that shamelessness is your superpower?” At this point, someone (likely a Republican) tries to get House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrod Nadler to cut Jeffries off, but Jeffries is going to finish this out. “Here’s a news flash straight from the House Judiciary Committee: Truth crushed to the ground will rise again. Truth will be your kryptonite.”

Coke Can Clarence (who refused to recuse) and Mrs. Chunker Clarence (who supported Trump's coup attempt).

Top Republican talking point on leaked Supreme Court draft is one for the ages

This is what Republicans DON'T want to call an insurrection.

Laura Clawson

Daily Kos Staff

Wednesday May 04, 2022 · 10:00 AM MDT

RSS

PUBLISHED TO

• Laura Clawson
• Daily Kos
• Blue Country Gazette Blog
• Rim Country Gazette Blog
  

Republicans were irate about the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion striking down Roe v. Wade, and it didn’t take them long to arrive at a talking point that is staggeringly dishonest even by Republican standards: the leak was the real insurrection.

Mind you, Republicans are getting what they want here, in the end of abortion rights at a federal level. Mind you, no one knows who leaked the draft and there are very good reasons to suspect it was a conservative. Mind you, the leak of a draft judicial opinion is not by any definition an insurrection. But, always on the search for ways to downplay the violence of their supporters on January 6 and to make themselves the victims of any event, this is where Republicans landed. For some odd reason, they don’t want people talking about the substance of the issue: widespread abortion bans. It’s almost like they realize that’s not actually going to be popular.

“You want to talk about an insurrection?” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said. “That’s a judicial insurrection, to be taking that out and trying to kneecap a potential majority through kind of extra-constitutional means.”

“For all the left’s cries of ‘threats to democracy’ and ‘insurrection’ about things like uncensored speech on Twitter or literally walking peacefully through a door, what happened Monday night appeared to be a far truer and more dangerous example of treasonous insurrection,” The Federalist railed.

According to right-wing podcaster Matt Walsh, it was “an actual insurrection,” one “100000000 times more serious than the Capitol riot.” Former George W. Bush staffer Ari Fleischer called the leak “an insurrection against the Supreme Court.” It goes on, because that’s how Republican talking points work. They come from everywhere all at once.

We are talking here about the leak of a non-classified draft document a few weeks ahead of when a final version of the document would have been publicly released. It is not the same thing as a mob violently storming the U.S. Capitol to prevent the Congress from doing its job and carrying out the peaceful transition of power. It is not the same thing as a sitting president and his aides trying to pressure state officials to “find” the votes needed to flip an election result. 

The Republican hissy fit is ostensibly based on the idea that the leak was intended to intimidate the right-wing justices away from this position, but it sure looks like a big distraction—the dog caught the car and it turns out not to have been as desirable as expected. For that matter, many court observers say it could equally be intended to lock in initial votes to fully overturn Roe and prevent Chief Justice John Roberts from pulling votes to a slightly less extreme position in the interest of protecting the court’s ever-fading legitimacy as an institution.

The leak of the draft is under investigation. If it turns out to have been leaked by a conservative, you can confidently bet that Republicans will launch another distraction. But the real story will remain the tens of millions of people stripped of reproductive rights, the women who die from unsafe illegal abortions, the people whose lives are reshaped by unintended pregnancies for which they have no recourse. This Supreme Court decision—not the leak but the decision itself—kicks off a tragedy that will unfold for years with the most vulnerable as its victims.

"Mind you, Republicans are getting what they want here, in the end of abortion rights at a federal level."

ALDOUS J. PENNYFARTHING/DAILY KOS: Satan's flag might fly outside Boston's city hall after SCOTUS ruling backing Christian group

Welcome to the party, Baphomet!

Aldous J Pennyfarthing for Community Contributors Team

Community

Wednesday May 04, 2022 · 2:00 PM MDT

RSS

PUBLISHED TO

• Aldous J Pennyfarthing
• Community Contributors Team
• Street Prophets
• Daily Kos
• Pro Choice
• Blue Country Gazette Blog
• Rim Country Gazette Blog
  

With all the hullabaloo over Associate Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked draft opinion reducing any American with a uterus to an involuntary fetus decanter, another Jesus-adjacent SCOTUS decision flew under the radar on Monday. 

The high court ruled that the city of Boston violated the First Amendment rights of a group that wanted to raise a Christian flag outside city hall as part of a program that welcomed various emblems in celebration of civic pride. Because the flag-raising program amounted to a public forum, the court stated, the city could not discriminate against the group, Camp Constitution, based on the religious content of its display.

And unlike Alito’s draft decision scuttling Roe, this ruling was unanimous, as it hinged narrowly on whether the displays amounted to “government speech.”

CNN:

Central to the case was whether the flagpole is perceived as an example of government speech. If so, the city has a right to limit displays without violating free speech principles. The Free Speech Clause of the Constitution restricts government regulation of private speech, it does not regulate government speech. But if, on the other hand, the display amounts to private speech, in a government-created forum where others are invited to express their views, the government cannot discriminate based on the viewpoint of one of the speakers.

[Justice Stephen] Breyer concluded that the flag-raising program "does not express government speech."

Okay, then. We’re all agreed! The flags are not considered government-endorsed speech, so Boston can’t limit who participates based on religious affiliation. So where do we go from here?

This sounds like a job for The Satanic Temple!

MassLive.com:

The Satanic Temple is hoping to raise one of its flags in front of Boston City Hall after the Supreme Court ruled Boston violated free speech rights when it refused to fly a Christian group’s flag.

“Religious Liberty is a bedrock principle in a democracy, and Religious Liberty is dependent upon government viewpoint neutrality,” Lucien Greaves, cofounder of The Satanic Temple said in a statement. “When public officials are allowed to preference certain religious viewpoints over others, we do not have Religious Liberty, we have theocracy.”

Say it with me now: “Hail Satan!”

In all seriousness, as an ex-altar boy who rejected God decades ago but somehow retained all the crushing Catholic guilt, I find this whole issue kind of annoying. Christians and other religious folks have literally hundreds of millions of acres of private land on which to build their displays, shrines, creches, Festivus poles, and other knickknacks, and yet they continually feel compelled to proselytize in public venues—in clear defiance of Jesus’ expressed wishes. These controversies would disappear overnight if people just stayed in their lanes.

In my marginally informed opinion, Satan and God are equally proficient at not existing, so in one way I don’t have a dog in this hunt. But in another, far more accurate way? I’m totally rooting for Satan and his temple.

Here’s a bit more on the group, from Masslive:

[The Satanic Temple doesn’t] view Satan as an evil figure, but as one who dared question authority. The group mostly advocates for the separation of church and state and is known for attempting to get its one-ton goat-headed idol statue put next to the 10 Commandments monument on public grounds.

The Satanic Temple 

Of course, conservatives will shit a pallet of Wetzel’s Pretzels the moment a Satanic flag is raised over Boston’s city hall, but they should have thought of that when they decided to shove their dogmas into every nook and cranny of public life. Sauce for the goose and all that.

Personally, I couldn’t care less if a Christian group is briefly flying flags on public land in Boston, so long as they don’t block other religions’ access to the same space. But that means all religions get the same access—including the hallucinogenic-toad-licking Rip Taylor mystery cult I’ve been workshopping in my garage during my downtime between absinthe benders and binging Succession. Is this really a workable policy?

And, to be fair, The Satanic Temple is actually being sincere when it engages on these issues—far more sincere, I’d argue, than their Christian counterparts.

“I hope that with the leaked draft of the Supreme Court majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, more people will wake up to the fact that these efforts by The Satanic Temple are actually high-stakes frontline battles to preserve the basic rights of all, and not merely clever ‘pranks’ to expose already well-known hypocrisies,” Greaves told MassLive.

You know what's scarier than Satan?  The Donald holding a bible with that smirk on his face.

George Carlin’s take on the ‘pro-life’ movement is going viral again—for good reason

Walter Einenkel

Daily Kos Staff

Wednesday May 04, 2022 · 5:12 PM MDT

RSS

PUBLISHED TO

• Walter Einenkel
• Daily Kos Social
• DK Health
• Blue Country Gazette Blog
• Rim Country Gazette Blog
  

With the leaked decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and send our country back to the era where we burned witches at the stake for staring at people, a famous old stand-up bit by the late, great, George Carlin is doing the rounds again. It’s a piece about the “pro-life” movement, aka the “anti-abortion” movement, the Christian conservative movement that has continued on in our country for decades and has now successfully dragged our society’s discourse back hundreds of years. Carlin takes on all of the language used and how just the smallest bit of analysis exposes how incoherent, how hypocritical, and ultimately, how clearly false all of the right’s rhetoric around abortion really is.

Carlin talks about the right-wing concept of “conception of life.” How the “fertilized egg” is supposedly a child. After riffing on how problematic and untrue that is, Carlin makes the point that the majority of a person’s “fertilized eggs” end up being flushed out during the menstrual cycle, “So basically what these anti-abortion people are telling us is that any woman who's had more than one period is a serial killer.” He also reminds everyone that Catholics are some of abortion’s biggest opponents, and also one of the biggest opponents of homosexuals and homosexuality. “Well who has less abortions than homosexuals? Leave these fucking people alone for Christ's sakes. Here is an entire class of people guaranteed never to have an abortion and the Catholics and Christians are just tossing them aside—you'd think they'd make natural allies.”

Carlin pokes a bit more at the hypocrisy of the church in this regard, and then zeroes in on the phraseology used by the so-called “pro-life” movement. Specifically, Carlin wants to understand the term “sanctity of life.”

CARLIN: Well I mean, life is sacred? Who said so? God? Hey, if you read history you realize that God is one of the leading causes of death. Has been for thousands of years.

In fact, Carlin argues, so many different religions have used “God” to justify killing others that killing might be considered part of His brand. But beyond all of that, beyond the preaching about the “sanctity of life,” Carlin wants to know: Where do we practice what we preach? Which brings us back to the anti-abortionists:

CARLIN: Boy these conservatives are really something aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn, but once you're born you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no daycare, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're pre-born you're fine. If you’re preschool you're fucked!

Then Carlin moves on to when conservatives remember you’re alive: when you get to military age and they can send you off to kill and be killed. “These people aren't pro-life, they're killing doctors. What kind of pro-life is that? They'll do anything they can to save a fetus but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it.” And finally, Carlin, at his greatest, synthesizes it down to the essence: “They're not pro-life. You know what they are? They’re anti-woman.”

To the streets and to the ballot boxes.  We have nothing to lose but our freedom.

Chief Justice Roberts is very concerned with 'betrayal' and 'breach of trust'

Dartagnan

Community

Tuesday May 03, 2022 · 6:12 PM MDT

RSS

PUBLISHED TO

• Dartagnan
• Community Contributors Team
• Daily Kos

Chief Justice John Roberts is understandably upset about the leaking of his fellow conservative, Samuel Alito’s, wrathful, misogynistic diatribe representing the views of (apparently) the majority of the Supreme Court toward the subject of abortion. In an exceedingly rare statement following the publication of the leaked opinion, Roberts huffed about the impropriety of it all:

To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the Court will not be affected in any way.

We at the  Court are blessed to have a workforce—permanent employees and law clerks  alike—intensely loyal to the institution and dedicated to the rule of law. Court employees have an exemplary and important tradition of respecting the confidentiality of the judicial process and upholding the trust of the Court. This  was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here.

Justice Roberts’ indignance at what will most certainly be the final nail in any perception that the operating majority of this court as currently constituted is anything but a cabal of extremist right-wing Federalist Society hacks—specifically bred and cultivated for one purpose—likely stems from his realization that, ultimately, his own incompetence will be blamed. And that’s a perfectly reasonable sentiment. This type of premature “leaking” of an opinion—let alone one carrying such magnitude—has never happened before in the history of the court, and the blame for it, whatever the facts may be, ultimately rests on his shoulders as chief justice. He senses this, or he should. And elected Republicans, adopting this same line, appear to be far more outraged at the bare fact of the “leak” rather than the actual content of what was “leaked.”

The irony here is inescapable. Roberts bemoans the “betrayal of confidences” displayed by the public dissemination of a judicial opinion that represents just such a betrayal. Presumably, he is complaining about this rude infringement upon the court’s prerogative to deliberate and fashion its opinions privately, without exposing its inner workings to the public (a “right of privacy” so to speak, which is particularly rich given that the entire debate about abortion centers on privacy, and the entire premise of Alito’s opinion seeks to eviscerate that right). 

But “betrayal of confidence” also means a breach of trust, and the draft majority opinion is exactly that: a betrayal of confidence in all American women and those who may become pregnant. It is a betrayal of their expectations, their convictions, and most importantly, their personal autonomy to make one of the most intimate, personal decisions imaginable. In fact, it is worse than a betrayal; it is a statement of wholehearted disrespect and disdain. That is the real essence of Alito’s hate-filled rant.

Perhaps even worse than that, it is a staggering betrayal of the very “rule of law” that Roberts leaps here to defend. It is a betrayal and disregard of the duty of adherence to prior precedent which is, in fact, the only glue that bestows any legitimacy on a judicial body. And now that this court has seen fit to abandon that duty based on political considerations and ideology, the world sees just how hollow this supposedly hallowed institution has become.

He calls it a “singular and egregious breach of that trust,” but he spares no consideration for the millions of those Americans who placed their trust in his court, their trust that the state would never become weaponized against them, now seeing their rights suddenly ripped away. And not just “any” rights: rather, the basic, visceral, biological, and personal right to make one’s own reproductive decisions, a right that had existed under the Constitution and was explicitly validated by his own forbears for half a century. He complains of an “affront” to the court’s decorum, ignoring the colossal affront his own colleagues have just perpetrated.

This is your court, Mr. Roberts. They just showed all Americans exactly what they are. So please, just spare us your paeans to propriety and “decorum.”

We don't have to take this anymore.  We are the majority.  We are the people.  We can vote the Republican Party and its rigged Supreme Court into oblivion - and we must!