Law Professsor and His Dog Whistle Attack on the Supreme Court

[excalibur]

Like true Marxists and their fellow travelers, they intend to "save" democracy by destroying the Republic. And they are getting more and more bold in their tearing away the thin veneer of our civil society.

The 'summer of love 2020' was their test case and they saw no pushback by the American people and so away they go.

This is an absolutely nauseating statement from a Univ. of Texas law professor in a NYT Op Ed about the Supreme Court and the various Trump cases making their way to the Court.

"But when the stakes are this high and the legal questions are novel, the justices have a duty to hand down decisions that resonate across the political spectrum — or at least that avoid inciting violence in the streets. That’s not subverting the rule of law; it’s preserving it."

"Hey SCOTUS, we're going to riot in the streets if your decisions don't go our way."

A "duty to hand down decisions that resonate across the political spectrum"????

A "duty"???

This is oft cited Stephen Vladeck.​

 

[Donald H]

Where were Americans defending their Constitution with their guns when the election was stolen from Trump?

Having a peaceful picnic on the Capitol lawns?

What happened to all the owners of guns who kept barking about needing their AR-15's to defend against corrupt government? Shameful cowards!

 

[Oddball]

Where were Americans defending their Constitution with their guns when the election was stolen from Trump?

Having a peaceful picnic on the Capitol lawns?

What happened to all the owners of guns who kept barking about needing their AR-15's to defend against corrupt government? Shameful cowards!

Deal with your own commie bastard son of a commie, snow Meskin.

 

[Donald H]

Deal with your own commie bastard son of a commie, snow Meskin.

I don't deny that Fidel got into Margaret's panties. But have a happy holiday anyway Ms. grinch!

 

[White 6]

Like true Marxists and their fellow travelers, they intend to "save" democracy by destroying the Republic. And they are getting more and more bold in their tearing away the thin veneer of our civil society.

The 'summer of love 2020' was their test case and they saw no pushback by the American people and so away they go.

This is an absolutely nauseating statement from a Univ. of Texas law professor in a NYT Op Ed about the Supreme Court and the various Trump cases making their way to the Court.​

​

"But when the stakes are this high and the legal questions are novel, the justices have a duty to hand down decisions that resonate across the political spectrum — or at least that avoid inciting violence in the streets. That’s not subverting the rule of law; it’s preserving it."​

​

"Hey SCOTUS, we're going to riot in the streets if your decisions don't go our way." ​

​

A "duty to hand down decisions that resonate across the political spectrum"???? ​

​

A "duty"??? ​

​

This is oft cited Stephen Vladeck​

I am pretty sure, we can count on him, never being on the court, as he has never been a judge at any level, either.

Personally, I figure when the stakes are high and the legal questions are novel, is time to go strict constructionist and not get creative. Of course, I won't ever be on the court, either.

 

[BS Filter]

Where were Americans defending their Constitution with their guns when the election was stolen from Trump?

Having a peaceful picnic on the Capitol lawns?

What happened to all the owners of guns who kept barking about needing their AR-15's to defend against corrupt government? Shameful cowards!

We're doing all we can to contain the retribution because of the consequences. No one wants to start a hot civil war, but if the left keeps pushing us we will reach a point of no return.

 

[jwoodie]

What happened to all the owners of guns who kept barking about needing their AR-15's to defend against corrupt government? Shameful cowards!

So you prefer assault, battery and arson to peaceful protest?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

So the SCOTUS has a duty now to render decisions BASED on which ruling outcome would cause the least damage to society? I thought the legal system is supposed to be blind?

 

[BS Filter]

So the SCOTUS has a duty now to render decisions BASED on which ruling outcome would cause the least damage to society? I thought the legal system is supposed to be blind?

Many don't understand how the Supreme Court works.