Or they’ll just ignore it and not take the case. They don’t even need to explain why.

I wonder if VA allows court packing without constitutional amendment. Send two new justices over and review the ruling. The Republicans overruled the people, it’s warranted.

The 4 Republicans (it was a 4-3 partisan ruling) ruled that the procedure for putting an amendment before voters wasn’t followed. They did that by defining “election” to be from the very first moment a vote is sent in so they could say the initiating vote by the legislature (where it also passed twice) was too late to count as having an intervening election between votes.

The new plan was distributing Democratic voters and consolidating Republican ones, that’s how gerrymandering works. There’s no world in which this is a net positive.

The thing that the actual voters voted in was an amendment to the state constitution. It doesn’t get more democracy than this.

Once the Republicans have locked in control, why would they ever pass that? They’ve had the option to ban gerrymandering before when it would be roughly neutral but refused. Now they’ve engineered an advantage without letting their constituents vote on it. Letting them out of that prison would demolish them.

They’re actually throwing out votes in Louisiana, but sure, because some people had cast early votes that they could change, the votes they cast in a well-publicized effort later didn’t count.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-USCT-Strategy-1.pdf

I also like how the Islamic terrorists are “legacy” as if there’s nothing going on right now that could be generating a whole new generation of Anti-American terrorists. It’s only some old guys who still hate us for our 2000’s freedom.

It’s consecrated for both Islamists and lesbians.

Not “antifa”, anti-fascists. They’re just admitting it now.

It thinks Republicans are. Because passivity from the Republicans in the Senate is all he needs to keep the war going. I certainly have no faith in the military to reject unlawful orders themselves.

At this point I think they’ve pretty much abandoned any trappings that they were just following a judicial philosophy (that just happened to be good for conservative politics). Their recent rulings don’t have a consistent philosophy other than “Republicans should win”. Precedent doesn’t matter, their own attestations don’t matter, originalism doesn’t matter. They’ll rule the same basic case two ways if one is brought by Republicans and the other Democrats.

Remember the “major questions doctrine” they invented so they can decide the text of laws don’t matter if the result is a big change? That seems to be MIA when Trump does wild stuff by executive order alone. Now it’s all just deferring to the executive.

John Roberts is very much not the radical center. He’s a conservative operator through and through, but will sometimes throw the liberals a bone for optics when it doesn’t matter so he can take big swings like this when it does.

Is that because you remember gopherking was doing that or because sailor’s response implied it? Because I’ve never even heard of anyone calling for Warren to have been the last nominee. That’d be pretty divorced from reality.

Just because you don’t follow her doesn’t mean she’s not pushing progressive things in off years. She was the first Senator to call Gaza a genocide, voted in the progressive block on all the votes I can remember where there was a progressive vs. moderate split, and is constantly advocating for more progressive positions on things. Which is all any of the progressives do because their actual power as legislators is basically nil and all they have is their voice.

This just seems to be a kind of nonsensical made up version of her. You’re both criticizing her for (supposedly) toeing the party line while also complaining that she sowed division against Harris through the general election (something that’s just entirely made up) and led Warren voters to stay home (which is just wildly out of step with their whole vibe). Is your imaginary version supposed to be a “controlled” party loyalist or a rabble-rouser sabotaging the party nominee?

Huh? What’s with Warren catching strays? She’s been out doing events supporting Platner.

I think there are some motivated by anti-Communist propaganda, but a lot more were suckered in by a theory of politics where everything was mostly correct and Democrats just need to keep up the slow and steady progress to optimize away the few minor problems that exist. All the systemic things that aren’t good are just laws of nature, not the result of policy choices that could just be changed. Nevermind that other countries have done so or how unbelievably wealthy we are as a nation.

The only thing that makes bad policy happen is Republicans being in power, so when the Democratic party’s master plan in disrupted, that’s bad. They’re the adults in the room and experts on policy and winning elections after all. And Bernie did that in 2016. If we’d all just checked out, ignored all the steadily worsening problems in the status quo, and followed orders we’d all be happy at brunch.

Which with Trump being SO bad and the margins being so close, that might have been true (along with a host of other potential reasons the party downplays because they’re their fault). But it’d just be a band-aid like Biden was. The problem is it’s not Trump that’s the singular threat of fascism. He’s kicked it into high gear, but the alternate timeline brunch-goers would still have children living at home because they can’t afford housing, be one step away from medical bankruptcy, and feel constantly in danger of losing their livelihood.

Trump didn’t do any of that, but pressure like that makes people look for outsiders to blame and leaders willing to radically change the system. If it wasn’t him it’d be Tucker Carlson or someone else. And until that happened we’d keep trading back and forth with Republicans because the status quo always feels bad even while we’re convinced it cannot change.

It’s less that left change is communist and communism must be avoided at all cost, it’s that the Democratic party is already doing the best possible and anything else is dangerous and harmful. And they’ll point at Trump as proof. Nevermind that his change is bad because he wants bad things, the problem is all change.

…find like minded individuals and start a hit squad for increased odds of success.

Handing off the baton implies to me he has some role in selecting a successor. I don’t even want him to do that. He’s just bad at politics.

Also one of the problems with Mills was being too old, and Chuck is just 3 years younger. Hopefully he takes it personally.