You know, there was never a meaningful principle to keep Republicans from filling this slot. To people who strongly believe that abortion is murder and disrespect of police is dangerous, there's a moral imperative to enforce that view.
For the vast majority of this country's history, the Supreme Court has been a conservative institution, opposed to most things that liberals want. And yet, people still gained important freedoms.
So the next 30 years, minimum, will be spent on defense. Laws important to liberals will be struck down. But if folks can be half as galvanized by this change as conservatives were in the wake of Roe, this may create an issue, election after election, that makes people vote.
And also, of course, there will be pleasant surprises. When you choose extremely smart people to sit on the Supreme Court--and many on the President's list are excellent--their views are unlikely to be in lockstep with their party's.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you chase someone with your car, that is aggravated assault. And you cannot be justified doing something once you commit a felony. You can't shoot an armed homeowner, for instance, if he tries to stop you from burglarizing his house.
Now let's say it turns out that the armed homeowner is a murderer.
That shit isn't relevant, because no set of facts about his past make it ok to break into his house and shoot him.
The first thing to note about Trump's WSJ lawsuit is that he filed it federally in Florida.
In almost every jurisdiction, filing a lawsuit federally helps you avoid the anti-SLAPP statute.
But not in Florida.
So, for instance, when Dan Bongino filed a lawsuit against the Daily Beast for saying he was fired, the Daily Beast filed an anti-SLAPP motion, even though it was in federal court.
And prevailed, because the suit was without merit.