Slate Article: The President can overturn the Supreme Court if he wants
(web.archive.org)
Comments (24)
sorted by:
For 70 years, they claimed that the Supreme Court legislating from the bench was just 'the law of the land' and that it had to be obeyed even if you did not agree with it.
As soon as it makes the slightest, tiniest turn against them, the Supreme Court need not be obeyed.
This is why Leftism is a Philosophy of War.
Alinsky is a great way to win temporary battles. It’s a terrible way to prevent civil war.
Victory is won by whom has the highest resolve.
The left wins because they have such a resolve. A resolve that says that destroying everything and going to the brink (or past it) is worth it in the quest for power.
Do you have such resolve?
If you did, you would be one of them.
Alinsky wasn't trying to prevent a civil war in the first place.
He was trying to win one.
White males and other evil conservatives are the problem, apparently. Love the fact they don't mention all the benefits and special treatments they give white women and blacks.
GAD ZOOKS! The dastardly Drumpftards figured out what we did 50 years ago with Critical Theory! Now that we've used Gramskian and Alinskist tactics to seize control of every state bar association, they are beginning to resist!
This is the real threat against Democracy.
And I guarantee whatever data they're using to make that claim is bunk
Which is funny because 20 years ago it was the exact opposite. The christian law schools weren't worth a damn and the lawyers they pumped out were little more than fluffheads. Think Jeb's lawyers, the 2000 recount rioters, and Rick Scott's blonde retard.
Leftists committed a hostile takeover of the legal profession, and now they’re mad that clerkship demographics don’t resemble the leftist legal cesspool they created?
and jews, and George Soros buying attorney generals state by state to drop charges against niggers
There are no bad tactics only bad targets.
What did you expect? This is Slate, home of paedophile advocacy, after all - of course they're going to take Biden's side!
I'm confused. Obviously this is Slate, so I don't assume much in the way of intelligence from the author, so I'm not sure if my confusion is due to my poor knowledge or the simple fact that this is a Slate article.
The guy was hired by Slate to be a professional homosexual. That's literally it. And now he's commenting on 'legal affairs', which is quite a joke, as he often spreads misinformation.
Probably Shinn v. Ramirez. This is what I sent to some one that was up in arms about it after I looked into it:
Basically in an appeal you can't introduce new evidence unless it meets a particular legal standard (I think it's "clear and convincing"). There's a guy on death row for raping a 4 year old to death who had some bullshit evidence that wasn't introduced by his state provided lawyer. It's basically an expert witness testifying that "he couldn't have done it because it takes 48 hours for someone to die of a ruptured internal organ", but to find it compelling you have to ignore the bruising and other injuries that definitely developed in the time frame that he had the girl in his care and that despite her ultimately fatal internal injuries he never noticed or took her to hospital. Because it is a death penalty case however it got appealed all the way to the federal supreme court, who ruled that the evidence wasn't sufficiently compelling to meet the rules around what evidence can be introduced on appeal. The anti death penalty people have all written their "man on death row prevented from introducing evidence that would have found him innocent" and anyone that just read the headline is up in arms.
The only way to protect Biden's Democracy is with unlimited power.
Why do you hate freedom?