This argument was inevitable. If you lose the presidency because you lost the Electoral College vote, well then, that be your case for eliminating the electoral college right theya. Case closed. So, as surely as night follows day, then what would the "logical" progressive argument be if you are afraid of losing cases/appointments at the Supreme Court? Those of you who follow the bouncing ball at CNN know where this is going. Maybe we can make the 2020 election campaign issues a twofer. Argue for abolishing both the electoral college and the supreme court. or does it become a threefer if you throw in abolishing ICE/and all law enforcement. I dont know. Hard to keep up with all this "progress." https://www.vox.com/2018/10/12/17950896/supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh-constitution
Reading smart people misrepresenting legal reality makes me sick to my stomach. Except for the Citizens United the court has been bending over for the left. Those obamacare decisions were garbage and an assault on our liberties. Making us pay money to third parties? Allowing the govt to flip the market on its head with exchanges designed to charge those who they deem wealthy pay more - rather than being charged market prices? Then... we saw the court invalidate the vote of the people in California with respect to gay marriage? The court has been more than fair to the left the last generation. Now they lose a sometimes left judge and they want to throw the whole system away.
It's almost as if leftists are like bratty, petulant children who throw a tantrum when they don't get their way and want to change the rules, get a do-over, cheat or do whatever it takes to "win."
This is why socialists and pre commies with jobs and media platforms are so dangerous for our future generations. They don't think long term. They don't wonder if they are wrong. They don't acknowledge that power corrupts. They don't What if my govt gets totalitarian. In short they don't think like our founders... classical liberals. They think like Marx. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...t-would-crush-conservatives-when-hillary-won/ In talking with Vox, Tushnet fronts part of his legal philosophy while explaining the role of the Supreme Court. “I should start by saying I’m not a textualist or an originalist, which is to say I don’t think the meaning of the Constitution is stable or fixed from the time it was enacted,” he tells Illing. Tushnet, however, does not explain in that setting how he does interpret the Constitution. He did that in a 1981 Ohio State Law Journal article. “Yet there is a sense in which the answer completes the general approach that I suggest is appropriate in constitutional scholarship,” he wrote. “My answer, in brief, is to make an explicitly political judgment: which result is, in the circumstances now existing, likely to advance the cause of socialism?”