Yep definitely don't want Brown v. Board, Loving, Obergeffel, etc.

YIKES If I used Korn Ferry as a recruiter for my business I would be looking for a replacement ASAP. You would think the basic responsibility of a recruiting firm would not be to generate liability for its clients but apparently not?!?

The last 10 years have taught us through visceral experience, it's that decency and character comprise the baseline standard we can't compromise. Arguably more important than ideology since kind and just people will have mostly the same objectives for society, even if they disagree on execution.

Yep

The first story I read on this just quoted the negative review from the Dolphins (chip on his shoulder, dictatorial) and I was like "ok, that's bad, but not necessarily racial" Then I read this, and holy shit it's a fucking foghorn. The entire doc is bonkers

The entire concept of "dirtbag leftist" was "fundamentally a nasty person, but leftishly" And I hate to tell you this but you can't both be a fundamentally nasty person and also a moral one

BTW, a secondary benefit of a DRAMATIC expansion of SCOTUS (i.e. triple the number of justices, not add 1 or 4) is that you could concomitantly expand the number of cases they take

ha, of course, that thought never crossed my mind

That was my view of him until some of the recent cases, where he was asking questions straight out of gateway pundit

FWIW, it looks like they didn't find the clot until Saturday, after they were already in London

THEY LET HIM FLY TO AND FROM LONDON WITH A CLOT IN HIS CALF?!?! ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!?!

No I cannot believe the eagles admin and med staff allowed Jalen to get on an international, multi-hour flight TWICE while knowing he had a blood clot. They very easily could’ve killed him. Not hyperbole.

You can. But the problem with "pass a law" is that a different congress can change it. It's not a solution to "what happens when power changes hands" since it doesn't change the ability of those new hands to change that law

No, there were enough institutionalists pre-trump to have held the line on court packing

A "collective quote"

The goal isn't to mollify the GOP it's to help preserve SCOTUS legitimacy in the eyes of the broader public

Nova, without question (they're remedying that, of course).

So they'd be taking a politically unpopular move for zero practical gain and potentially some real loss

Juice isn't worth the squeeze. As it stands, they've got control of the court, and the Dems will either pack it or not. If the Ds are going to, expanding it now doesn't help; if the Ds need to add 4 seats or 10 or 100 they're going to do it. If they aren't going to, R expansion will make it happen

Problem is that you need a 2/3 majority in the senate for a successful impeachment