I sighed audibly while watching David Brooks on the PBS Newshour clutching his pearls again in the very way you describe. He claimed SCOTUS would never allow the DQ to stand for fear of causing a massive social upheaval and constitutional crisis. Any thoughts on this?
Just luuuv these court motions filed/written by the Orange Gobshite, where the defendant is forever referred to as "President tRump", really in the contemporary sense, and not as a honorific. Well, as he in fact did "win" in 2020, as his "evidence" will show, I guess he rightfully can be thought as "President tRump"...or, what am I missing here?
I suggest those who are concerned about David Brooks scare mongering, hop
over to Professor Tim Synder's Substack essay on
Pitchforks.
Not one step back in 2024. We have to take it to them
every step of the way.
Happy to see MM David. Take
it to them!👍
Welcome back and happy new year! 😞yes...about David Brook’s comment
I sighed audibly while watching David Brooks on the PBS Newshour clutching his pearls again in the very way you describe. He claimed SCOTUS would never allow the DQ to stand for fear of causing a massive social upheaval and constitutional crisis. Any thoughts on this?
see above
Just luuuv these court motions filed/written by the Orange Gobshite, where the defendant is forever referred to as "President tRump", really in the contemporary sense, and not as a honorific. Well, as he in fact did "win" in 2020, as his "evidence" will show, I guess he rightfully can be thought as "President tRump"...or, what am I missing here?
The "rule of law" is whatever any given judge says it is on any given day. Ergo there is no such thing as "rule of law".