@lawrenceodonnell.msnbc.com
Hey Lawrence, I'm watching you tonight and was a bit surprised when you said that Hillary Clinton said what she said about "deplorables" in a private event.
I very clearly remember her calling Trump's MAGA followers deplorable's during their public televised debate.

@lawrenceodonnell.msnbc.com
Hey Lawrence, I'm watching you tonight and was a bit surprised when you said that Hillary Clinton said what she said about "deplorables" in a private event.
I very clearly remember her calling Trump's MAGA followers deplorable's during their public televised debate.

I want this Reposted by All including the Maga. Your Lack of Education in Red States is Directly tied to Religion in the Bible Belt and Republicans who Surpress your Educational Rights and thus your indoctrination to Give money to churches and Vote For Republicans without Critical Thinking 🥲😡👊👍😎👏🇺🇸

It can't just be a degradation of the system in general. It needs to be targeted specifically at red districts and even at red individuals - and they need to see the alternative.

If you fight a war on science and civilization, than that is exactly when you get.

bsky.app/profile/poli...

One of the internal traditions of the Court is “collegiality.” First, you’re there for life, so you may as well get along. Second, issues come and issues go, and an ally in one case is an opponent in another. Third, the Court thinks of itself as a stately institution, hence decorum matters.

All of which is well and good — in ordinary times. It’s akin to members of Congress calling each other “the distinguished gentleman” or the “distinguished gentlelady,” to maintain decorum and avoid events like the caning of Senator Sumner.

But what if we’re not in ordinary times?

What if we are in a time when a billionaire-funded scheme has spent decades trying to pack the Court with billionaire-agreeable justices, so as to “capture” the Court in the sense of “regulatory capture” or “agency capture” — and what if the billionaires have finally succeeded?

What if we are in a time when a billionaires’ gifts program has given certain justices ‘lifestyles of the rich and famous’ and they have reciprocated with favorable rulings?

And sheltered behind the weakest ethics review of any court in the land whenever the gifts program is challenged?

What if we are in a time when favored parties and litigants win victories with statistically astounding regularity? And justices are feted at organizational fund-raising dinners where those statistically-astounding winners convene?

What if we are in a time when novel judicial doctrines, reverse-engineered for happy results for certain special interests, are grown and fertilized in special-interest-funded legal hothouses and then make their way through the Court to become the law of the land?

What if flotillas of secretly-funded amici curiae appear before the Court and sing in conspicuous harmony, and win with conspicuous frequency, and the Court makes little to no effort to enforce its own rules about amicus disclosure about their financing and coordination?

These are all unseemly things to discuss, indecorous, and not at all “collegial.” But if they are true, should they not be discussed? How much mischief happening in plain view in the courthouse should a justice ignore in the interest of “collegiality”?