SCOTUS Watch

[Carpet_pissr]

To be fair, excluding the morals of it, that is the best way to ‘win’: when your opponent doesn’t even know they’ve lost because you beat them so gradually.

[malchior]

The only question for me is whether they formally declare that Roe v. Wade is overturned. Functionally it was 95% overturned a long time ago. I'm sure that the Mississippi law will be allowed to stand, but the question is whether the decision is written such that they can point to Roe's desiccated corpse and pretend that there is some hypothetical situation out there in which the court would overturn an abortion restriction.

Yup. I'll put a marker down that Roberts will give this opinion to Barrett to paper over the whole men telling women what to do with their bodies optics. If he doesn't I'd ironically give him a little credit for not playing politics. I however think the thing that is clear is Roberts knows this issue is just too big to give to any of the men. Even though they won't be able to resist writing concurring opinions that might be be borderline churlish.

[malchior]

Kavanaugh is using these arguments to claim that "returning abortion to the states" is the new middle ground. I think this is pretty clearly over. There are obviously five votes to overturn Roe v. Wade.

FWIW anti-federalism is at the heart of many of the cases as I alluded to. The Conservatives knowing that they might not be able to carry national elections have another prong which is just breaking up the union functionally. We heard some votes in favor of overturning Chevron and eviscerating the federal rule making power. Kav and Barrett seemed reluctant to go that far but we heard 3 strong votes for that possibility. Big change is coming.

[Isgrimnur]

This question from Amy Coney Barrett is basically game over for Roe. She says: Now that all 50 states have "safe haven" laws that let women relinquish parental rights after birth, the burdens of parenthood discussed in Roe and Casey are irrelevant, and the decisions are obsolete.

Also, JFC

Did pregnancy and carrying to term become a binary state? Was there a patch that I missed?

[malchior]

As an example without Arbery's mother applying constant pressure her son's murderers would have gotten away with it. Put aside that they may yet get away with it.

Semi-aside, but is there some appeal that has a viable chance? How may they get away with it?

Correct. The appeals process. Some have said there is an outside chance an appeals court may side with them on some issue or another. It sounded more like...anything is possible to my ears but considering the history of the case...it isn't something to ignore completely. So many people involved were completely bent.

[Smoove_B]

In summary

It's wild that a third of the Supreme Court was appointed by a man who attempted to overthrow the United States government, and we just continue to let those judges hand down decisions.

[malchior]

I mean they were legally appointed before the coup attempt.

In other news, Sotomayor has just said fuck it to the "legal arguments" and is just spitting truth. I had to only wait a couple of minutes for someone to tweet this out because I heard it live and went...'damn'.

Edit: FWIW this unfortunately is the outcome of politicization. She said that for political effect and trying to tell her colleagues to step back from the brink.

[El Guapo]

The only question for me is whether they formally declare that Roe v. Wade is overturned. Functionally it was 95% overturned a long time ago. I'm sure that the Mississippi law will be allowed to stand, but the question is whether the decision is written such that they can point to Roe's desiccated corpse and pretend that there is some hypothetical situation out there in which the court would overturn an abortion restriction.

Yup. I'll put a marker down that Roberts will give this opinion to Barrett to paper over the whole men telling women what to do with their bodies optics. If he doesn't I'd ironically give him a little credit for not playing politics. I however think the thing that is clear is Roberts knows this issue is just too big to give to any of the men. Even though they won't be able to resist writing concurring opinions that might be be borderline churlish.

My gut says that Roberts will assign the decision to himself and then write an opinion that upholds the MS law without formally overturning Roe. It'll be an infuriating mishmash decision that only one or two other conservative justices will join in full, while the rest join in parts and dissent in parts (the parts that don't formally overrule Roe).

The result will be that red states will functionally ban abortion in full, but that Democrats won't be able to run in 2022 in purple / blue states on the formal destruction of Roe.

[malchior]

The only question for me is whether they formally declare that Roe v. Wade is overturned. Functionally it was 95% overturned a long time ago. I'm sure that the Mississippi law will be allowed to stand, but the question is whether the decision is written such that they can point to Roe's desiccated corpse and pretend that there is some hypothetical situation out there in which the court would overturn an abortion restriction.

Yup. I'll put a marker down that Roberts will give this opinion to Barrett to paper over the whole men telling women what to do with their bodies optics. If he doesn't I'd ironically give him a little credit for not playing politics. I however think the thing that is clear is Roberts knows this issue is just too big to give to any of the men. Even though they won't be able to resist writing concurring opinions that might be be borderline churlish.

My gut says that Roberts will assign the decision to himself and then write an opinion that upholds the MS law without formally overturning Roe.

This is a good option too. It'd make sense. It's ridiculously political though but doesn't look as political so that plays too.

It'll be an infuriating mishmash decision that only one or two other conservative justices will join in full, while the rest join in parts and dissent in parts (the parts that don't formally overrule Roe).

If it goes the Roberts route yep this follows. It'll be some twisted mess. From everything I heard today there isn't a good way to thread that needle without smashing Casey in the process. It'll still look fairly political but maybe not to low information voters? Though I have no idea if that sort of math matters anymore.

The result will be that red states will functionally ban abortion in full, but that Democrats won't be able to run in 2022 in purple / blue states on the formal destruction of Roe.

Anything that brings abortion bans to 26 states (that was the estimate I heard) isn't going to survive "but Roe is still the law of the land" type technical arguments. There is only so much you can stretch it.

[Zarathud]

Robert’s can only assign it to himself if he’s in the majority.

[malchior]

Robert’s can only assign it to himself if he’s in the majority.

That'd be the point in that scenario. He might vote in the majority to be able to limit the blast radius.

Also Chris Hayes with a good callout. Poland like Hungary is in the midst of a right-wing takeover of their government. Good company.

[Carpet_pissr]

Who's going to tell Sotomayor that most of the country already believes that the SC is a political entity?

[El Guapo]

Robert’s can only assign it to himself if he’s in the majority.

That'd be the point in that scenario. He might vote in the majority to be able to limit the blast radius.

Also at least a few of the conservative justices (probably Kavanaugh + Gorsuch, maybe Alito) wouldn't totally love the decision to overrule Roe being a 5-4 decision. So if Roberts isn't on board with overruling Roe, I imagine that a couple of the conservative justices would be willing to negotiate with Roberts to get him into the majority.

[Zarathud]

Why should the court be the arbiter for the rules on abortion? Well, Justice Kavanaugh, it's because the State legislatures and Congress have shown themselves in many cases to be filled with asshole legislators who have no legitimate purpose in their law but to repeatedly ignore the lines drawn by the Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh's whole analysis abdicating responsibility and assuming the good faith of bad actors in abortion decisions is simply disgusting. And disingenuous.

[Drazzil]

Kavanaugh is using these arguments to claim that "returning abortion to the states" is the new middle ground. I think this is pretty clearly over. There are obviously five votes to overturn Roe v. Wade.

FWIW anti-federalism is at the heart of many of the cases as I alluded to. The Conservatives knowing that they might not be able to carry national elections have another prong which is just breaking up the union functionally. We heard some votes in favor of overturning Chevron and eviscerating the federal rule making power. Kav and Barrett seemed reluctant to go that far but we heard 3 strong votes for that possibility. Big change is coming.

I would be shocked if the SCOTUS doesn't do something to break America. We're essentially looking at three stolen seats chaired by a rapist, a criminal and a dyed in the wool "Aunt". The court is illegitimate and is actively chopping away at what is left with blatant shows of naked partisanship. I wonder if the government has the balls to look back at the SCOTUS and say "Ermmm... No."

If not it's basically Biden as Gorbachev.

[Drazzil]

I've got an intresting question for you guys: At what point would you advocate a sitting president defy the SCOTUS?

When the supreme court decides who will be president? Oh wait. We're passed that.

When the supreme court guts unions and says money is free speech? Passed that point.

When the SC declares that the EPA cant regulate emissions? Closing in on that.

When the SC declares that people accused of a crime don't deserve a lawyer? This could be on the docket very soon.

How about when the SC declares the government has no right to pass federal laws? Apparently the motherfuckers are hinting at this as we speak.

[stessier]

I've got an intresting question for you guys: At what point would you advocate a sitting president defy the SCOTUS?

Think for a minute and explain what that would look like. Play it all the way out. The president doesn't like a ruling and does what? What happens after he makes whatever his move is? After that? What is the end result? How long does it take to get there? What does the result mean for our polite fiction called Society?

[Unagi]

I've got an intresting question for you guys: At what point would you advocate a sitting president defy the SCOTUS?

If you are talking about performing abortions in Texas, I would say the sitting president should first have the proper medical training.

Like stessier, I don't know what you mean exactly. Can you give a little more of a specific example of what you would see as the President defying the SCOTUS? And in what way it would be meaningful versus purely political declarations?

[Carpet_pissr]

I've got an intresting question for you guys: At what point would you advocate a sitting president defy the SCOTUS?

You would have been absolutely destroyed for posting this in 2015 or prior.

If we continue down our meandering path towards authoritarianism, we might see this as soon as with Trump 2.0.

My guess? Trump 3.0 whoever that will be. So let’s say within 10 years.

Edit: oops! now that I quote you I see that I completely misread the question. I thought I was answering ‘When do you think we’ll see a sitting President defy SCOTUS”?

[malchior]

I think there is a kernel of an idea in that question. It is another frontier that hasn't been breached yet. Still the question I care about is where will the balance fall? We are transforming and it seems impossible to predict what ewill emerge.

What's clear is that our system is shaking to pieces through repeated crises and public events. And we still can see the shape of major constitutional crises in the next few years.

The big change I see here is that now the crises are sourcing from all three branches of the government. Until RBG died Robert's was able to act as a brake on this trend. That is over now. That was the impact of previous systemic risks left unchecked. Now the rot is in the Court system. And we'll see the rot spread faster most likely.

The thing we have to wonder about is what happens when a SCOTUS representing a revanchest minority continuously undermines the ability of a majority to self-determine policy in the face of real world events? We are probably about to find out the answer to that question over the next few years.

[malchior]

Edit: oops! now that I quote you I see that I completely misread the question. I thought I was answering ‘When do you think we’ll see a sitting President defy SCOTUS”?

Still this is sort of "fun" to game out. It'd almost certainly have to be a Democrat since SCOTUS is about to unmask itself as a GOP institution with at least 2 but maybe 3 Trumpists on it. More like 2.5 across a spectrum of pertinent issues. I don't see many GOP Presidents arguing with SCOTUS anytime soon. If we did it'd be some grimdark out of control President situation.

So what would a Democrat break with the court on? I don't actually know. I guess maybe if SCOTUS backs an overturning of a Presidential election. I could see the sitting Democratic President essentially refuse to step down as the legitimacy of multiple instituting collapses but that's pretty far out. My point is it'd have to be huge to cross the Rubicon on that one.

[Little Raven]

I mean, it's been known to happen.

Jackson allegedly defied the Supreme Court over Worcester v. Georgia (1832), announcing, “John Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it.” The case revolved around Georgia’s attempt to apply state laws to Cherokee lands. The Court had ruled against Georgia’s authority to do so and Jackson, dedicated to Indian removal, allegedly challenged Marshall.

And not just by the bad Presidents.

John Merryman was a prominent planter from Baltimore County, Maryland, who had been arrested at his rural plantation. Held prisoner in Fort McHenry in Baltimore harbor,[3] he was kept inaccessible to the judiciary and to civilian legal authorities generally. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled in this case the authority to suspend habeas corpus lay exclusively with Congress.

The Executive Branch, including the United States Army, under the authority of the President of the United States as Commander-in-Chief, did not comply with Taney's Merryman opinion.

These incidents are generally viewed as regrettable but not fatal to the Republic. To see it again, we would need to see a scenario where it made sense for the President to take a HUGE gamble. That's very difficult to predict.

[Drazzil]

I've got an intresting question for you guys: At what point would you advocate a sitting president defy the SCOTUS?

Think for a minute and explain what that would look like. Play it all the way out. The president doesn't like a ruling and does what? What happens after he makes whatever his move is? After that? What is the end result? How long does it take to get there? What does the result mean for our polite fiction called Society?

Have you thought about what happens to our society if people are stupid enough to follow whatever rolls outta the mouth of the SC?

My guess is that the SC makes a ruling on say the EPA. The president consults with legal scholars and the AG and comes up with some sort of legal fiction to tell the SC to go fish. Then he or she makes the case to the American people that the ruling by the SC is illegal and partisan and will not be followed. If its a choice between fucking off the SC or losing the ability to govern I know which I choose.

[Drazzil]

I've got an intresting question for you guys: At what point would you advocate a sitting president defy the SCOTUS?

If you are talking about performing abortions in Texas, I would say the sitting president should first have the proper medical training.

Like stessier, I don't know what you mean exactly. Can you give a little more of a specific example of what you would see as the President defying the SCOTUS? And in what way it would be meaningful versus purely political declarations?

The EPA case is worth mentioning. Another would be three of the SC court justices ruling that the house had no legal authority to pass certain federal laws regulate certain things.

My guess is that after the SC in name or spirit destroys roe that they will take and rule on a certain number of cases that progressively limits the governments ability to govern.

[malchior]

That is not going to happen. If they overturn Chevron or something drastic it'll be game on for chaos but the likely outcome of the EPA case under way now? It isn't even close to the crisis that warrants this type of reaction.

[Zarathud]

Putting more power into the President to defy the Supreme Court is risky — even if we didn’t have the prospect of Trump or his cronies running again.

If the Democrats had the votes and could eliminate the filibuster, I would rather they add 2 new Justices to add balance.

[Little Raven]

My guess is that the SC makes a ruling on say the EPA. The president consults with legal scholars and the AG and comes up with some sort of legal fiction to tell the SC to go fish. Then he or she makes the case to the American people that the ruling by the SC is illegal and partisan and will not be followed. If its a choice between fucking off the SC or losing the ability to govern I know which I choose.

This scenario betrays a lack of knowledge about what the Supreme Court actually does.

You appear to be referencing West Virginia v. EPA.

Whether, in 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d), an ancillary provision of the Clean Air Act, Congress constitutionally authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to issue significant rules — including those capable of reshaping the nation’s electricity grids and unilaterally decarbonizing virtually any sector of the economy — without any limits on what the agency can require so long as it considers cost, nonair impacts and energy requirements.

Assuming that the Court sides with West Virginia on this issue, this doesn't mean that the EPA can't regulate emissions. It means the EPA can't regulate emissions under this particular section of the Clean Air Act. There's nothing stopping the EPA from attempting to regulate emissions under another section of the Act, or Congress from revising the Act to explicitly grant the EPA that authority.

It is extremely difficult to see how the President could "tell the Court to go fish" under this scenario. In the past, Presidential defiance of the Court has involved the Army, where, as Commander in Chief, the President wields rather extreme influence. But over a civilian agency that has to coordinate with state and local authorities constantly to work effectively? I can't see how that turn out positively. Even with the extra-legal authority, the EPA would quickly be paralyzed. You need buy in from your population for something like the EPA to actually work, and if you have buy in from the population, you don't need the extra-legal authority in the first place.

[Drazzil]

I think there is a kernel of an idea in that question. It is another frontier that hasn't been breached yet. Still the question I care about is where will the balance fall? We are transforming and it seems impossible to predict what ewill emerge.

What's clear is that our system is shaking to pieces through repeated crises and public events. And we still can see the shape of major constitutional crises in the next few years.

The big change I see here is that now the crises are sourcing from all three branches of the government. Until RBG died Robert's was able to act as a brake on this trend. That is over now. That was the impact of previous systemic risks left unchecked. Now the rot is in the Court system. And we'll see the rot spread faster most likely.

The thing we have to wonder about is what happens when a SCOTUS representing a revanchest minority continuously undermines the ability of a majority to self-determine policy in the face of real world events? We are probably about to find out the answer to that question over the next few years.

I honestly don't believe it's in the current democratic governments best interest to defy the supreme court. The Dem government is filled with people who fundamentally agree with the republican's about 95 percent of the time. They only disagree on the social issues. I firmly expect that the D's and the R's on the federal level have already capitulated our government away. They will "strongly protest" and then "throw up their hands" and go gently into boardrooms, news circuit talks and writing books... abroad.

[Zarathud]

If you can’t see the difference between Republican government in Texas and Florida and Democratic government in Illinois, New York or California, it’s time to stop posting bullshit and do some research. Get your head out of your ass, Drazzil.

[Drazzil]

If you can’t see the difference between Republican government in Texas and Florida and Democratic government in Illinois, New York or California, it’s time to stop posting bullshit and do some research. Get your head out of your ass, Drazzil.

I'ma have to call bullshit on your assertion that there's really a difference between a Republican government in Texas or Florida and a Democratic government in Illinois. Federal level politicians all go to the same events, invest in the same stock plans, move through the same circles and generally, have more in common with each other and represent more their donor class then their constituency.

You're too smart to not realize this, which leads me to believe that you're being disingenuous for the purposes of shitting on me.

I'm done with tolerating this sort of behavior demonstrated here. You can fuck off with that directly.

[gbasden]

If you can’t see the difference between Republican government in Texas and Florida and Democratic government in Illinois, New York or California, it’s time to stop posting bullshit and do some research. Get your head out of your ass, Drazzil.

I'ma have to call bullshit on your assertion that there's really a difference between a Republican government in Texas or Florida and a Democratic government in Illinois. Federal level politicians all go to the same events, invest in the same stock plans, move through the same circles and generally, have more in common with each other and represent more their donor class then their constituency.

You're too smart to not realize this, which leads me to believe that you're being disingenuous for the purposes of shitting on me.

I'm done with tolerating this sort of behavior demonstrated here. You can fuck off with that directly.

You are simply factually wrong. Look at COVID response in those states. CA has relatively strong mask mandates, vaccine outreach and many venues use the state provided vaccine registry that is available to everyone using a smartphone app. Compare and contrast with Florida, which is doing everything possible to avoid doing anything to prevent infection. Similarly, you can look at taxes, social programs (my son got full treatment for his autism thanks to CA, whereas in Texas you get nothing) and any number of other programs. You are the one being disingenuous. No, none of the states are Bernie socialist utopias, but blue and red states have significant differences.

[malchior]

If you can’t see the difference between Republican government in Texas and Florida and Democratic government in Illinois, New York or California, it’s time to stop posting bullshit and do some research. Get your head out of your ass, Drazzil.

I'ma have to call bullshit on your assertion that there's really a difference between a Republican government in Texas or Florida and a Democratic government in Illinois. Federal level politicians all go to the same events, invest in the same stock plans, move through the same circles and generally, have more in common with each other and represent more their donor class then their constituency.

You're too smart to not realize this, which leads me to believe that you're being disingenuous for the purposes of shitting on me.

I'm done with tolerating this sort of behavior demonstrated here. You can fuck off with that directly.

You are simply factually wrong. Look at COVID response in those states. CA has relatively strong mask mandates, vaccine outreach and many venues use the state provided vaccine registry that is available to everyone using a smartphone app. Compare and contrast with Florida, which is doing everything possible to avoid doing anything to prevent infection. Similarly, you can look at taxes, social programs (my son got full treatment for his autism thanks to CA, whereas in Texas you get nothing) and any number of other programs. You are the one being disingenuous. No, none of the states are Bernie socialist utopias, but blue and red states have significant differences.

FWIW I don't think he is being disingenuous. I have no doubt he thinks what he is saying is actually true.

[Smoove_B]

I think this goes here, namely because of the route for action. If this is correct (and I have no reason to doubt her statements)...fuck.

Roe isn't the end game. Lawrence and Obergefell aren't even the endgame. Griswold and the entire concept of a constitutionally protected right to privacy is the endgame. And then they'll ban birth control once Griswold is gone. They've been telling you this for decades. It wasn't hyperbole when people tried to tell you that conservatives wanted a government small enough to fit in your bedroom. That's what throwing the right to privacy out the window gives them. After the right to privacy goes, they're going to revisit Bob Jones v. United States and find a religious freedom right to segregation on the taxpayer dime. And then they're going to go after the civil rights cases. They've told you that openly for years. Go look up why conservatives hate the widely expanded reading of the commerce clause. They have made no secret of the fact that they have an issue with it because the commerce clause was used to force integration. They've been teaching kids in Christian schools for the last half century that Brown v. Board of Education was wrongly decided because they relied on psychological research to determine that there's no such thing as separate but equal. Y'all are out here freaking out about Roe and have no idea that they're already ten steps ahead of you and have been for decades.

Core:

And yes, Bob Jones v. United States is as good as gone as soon as they find the right test case. It's a pre-RFRA decision, and Michael Farris has repeatedly told everyone that he wrote RFRA to enshrine a religious freedom right to discriminate into federal law.

There's more, but that's the main point(s).

[malchior]

That is essentially what I believe is part of the endgame but I don't think it's all about privacy. That is part of the result of the increasingly authoritarian track the right has been taking. Everything they said above is pretty much in the last official GOP platform. It started falling apart due to Trump's free-form authoritarian ways but their last published national party platform was to right of most right-wing parties in Europe. The only ones to the right were the parties calling for outright banning of burkas, headscarfs, mosques, etc. And in effect, do we think that their barely tolerant positions now are solid or reflect the GOP base in any way? That is why we are seeing them align with far-right European parties right now. There is a wave of illiberal backlash moving through the Western world. And it's probably biggest and strongest here in the United States.

If you listen to Conservative legal scholars who largely mirror Kavanaugh's line during the Roe arguments - they think almost every issue should be returned to their (gerrymandered and sometimes undemocratic) state governments. There is a strong so-called anti-federalism undercurrent out there. But I think it is the wrong frame to think about it. All those states may be talking about anti-federalism or states rights but they are coordinated in an effort to essentially impose shadow federalism. They years ago set up their legal incubators with test legislation, test cases, and now a SCOTUS willing to deliver their viewpoint on the law and attempt to transform our society. It will be a hybrid approach. Issues where the best option is to control them locally (as in abortion) will go back to the states. Issues that have to be imposed on the entire nation (grift/oligarchy) will stay federal. They are carving the nation up. The next few years are shaping up to be tumultuous and we'll see if it starts to rip us apart at the seams.

[Carpet_pissr]

These incidents are generally viewed as regrettable but not fatal to the Republic. To see it again, we would need to see a scenario where it made sense for the President to take a HUGE gamble.

‘Regrettable but not fatal’ in the same sense that my Dad views CoVID: ‘it’s highly unlikely you’ll die from it’, says he. That is true, but let’s talk to people who didn’t die that were hospitalized for days, weeks or longer in the iCU, on ventilators, etc.

Check the dates of your references. Not insignificant I think. I mean I GUESS you could couch the Civil War in those terms, but man, that’s a pretty big ‘regrettable’.

[malchior]

These incidents are generally viewed as regrettable but not fatal to the Republic. To see it again, we would need to see a scenario where it made sense for the President to take a HUGE gamble.

‘Regrettable but not fatal’ in the same sense that my Dad views CoVID: ‘it’s highly unlikely you’ll die from it’. That is true, but let’s talk to people who didn’t die that were hospitalized for days, weeks or longer in the iCU, on ventilators, etc.

Check the dates of your references. Not insignificant I think. I mean I GUESS you could couch the Civil War in those terms, but man, that’s a pretty big ‘regrettable’.

I almost bit on this too. The biggest problem here is that norms and expectations for rule of law and importance of deference to the courts specifically because they can't directly enforce decisions have transformed significantly in the 150+ years since these two events. More importantly they provide absolutely no current predictive power. Those two things didn't kill the republic? Who cares. They might as well happened in a different country for all that they mean to us today. They don't really provide us any useful perspective when talking about our current issues.

[Carpet_pissr]

I wasn’t clear: was referring to the importance of the timing relative to the Civil War vs how long ago they were.

[malchior]

I wasn’t clear: was referring to the importance of the timing relative to the Civil War vs how long ago they were.

Right. I got that and think it's a valid point. I think it was I who wasn't clear.

I was going beyond that and just saying that regrettable issues aside it was so long ago and such a different era (a pre-Civil War agrarian society where most of the 'advanced nations' were monarchies) that they are entirely irrelevant when we are talking about whether a current or future President was going to break with the Supreme Court.

[Carpet_pissr]

Ah, yes. Agree.

[Zarathud]

If you can’t see the difference between Republican government in Texas and Florida and Democratic government in Illinois, New York or California, it’s time to stop posting bullshit and do some research. Get your head out of your ass, Drazzil.

I’ma have to call bullshit on your assertion that there's really a difference between a Republican government in Texas or Florida and a Democratic government in Illinois. Federal level politicians all go to the same events, invest in the same stock plans, move through the same circles and generally, have more in common with each other and represent more their donor class then their constituency.

You're too smart to not realize this, which leads me to believe that you're being disingenuous for the purposes of shitting on me.

I'm done with tolerating this sort of behavior demonstrated here. You can fuck off with that directly.

Stop spewing stupid prejudice bullshit and I’ll treat you differently. Your class envy is showing.

At best, you’re confusing social circles and wealth with politics. Sure they might go to the Congressional baseball game, the same movie theater or the hit play Hamilton. But so do Democrats and Republicans who work together around the country.

But there are many wealthy liberals who won’t invest in the same things as Republicans. So much so it’s called social investing. AOC is not getting invited to the same dinner parties as Paul Gosar. They certainly don’t go to the same fundraisers and parties. Washington is polarized and that’s part of the problem things can’t get done — and why you don’t see compromise laws passed. You’ve got the problem oversimplified and ass backward. Again.

How they would do the job if they had the votes would be completely different, and we’re seeing that play out with the Supreme Court now. You see that clearly with COVID and unemployment benefits in the States.

A person’s character and actions are not defined by what they do or where they work. You’re smart enough to know better.