What if we had a Supreme Court that didn’t shock and amaze us whenever it did the right thing?
We don't have to settle for occasional justice from the people who gutted the Voting Rights Act. We can have a Supreme Court that consistently backs justice for all Americans.
Today alone, a decision that you can’t fire people for being gay — a no-brainer — was accompanied by a refusal to take up a case about qualified immunity for cops, and approval of a gas pipeline running through the Appalachian Trail.
And here’s your reminder that last week, nine progressive organizations endorsed expansion of the Supreme Court.
That’s how we get a Court that does the right thing consistently, instead of amazing us with the occasional display of decency.
That’s how we get a Court that does the right thing consistently, instead of amazing us with the occasional display of decency.
Somebody call the whambulance for the bigots over at the right-wing Judicial Network; they’re *real* upset they can’t fire people for being gay any more. 
Things Bret Kavanaugh can shut right the hell up about:
* Seneca Falls
* Stonewall
* Every damn thing
* Seneca Falls
* Stonewall
* Every damn thing
Hi, Mark. Do you think the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional?
There's always someone -- usually a white guy -- eager to tell me I "misunderstand the court's role" or some thoughtful-sounding nonsense but they never seem eager to actually defend the Court's decision to gut the Voting Rights Act.
ME: Gutting the Voting Rights Act was bad. The Supreme Court shouldn’t do that.
SOME FUCKIN’ GUY: Actually it would behoove us to bear in mind textualism forthwith, to be sure.
Ever. Damn. Time.
SOME FUCKIN’ GUY: Actually it would behoove us to bear in mind textualism forthwith, to be sure.
Ever. Damn. Time.
This fairly unremarkable tweet currently has 19,000 likes. Sure seems like there’s some enthusiasm on the Left for doing something about the Supreme Court.
