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
In 1938, a Polish Jew living in Paris, Herschel Feibel Grynszpan, learned that his family had been arrested and deported.
He entered the German embassy, claiming to be a spy with valuable information, and shot an embassy official, Ernst vom Rath.
The Germans, of course, claimed that this was an enormous outrage--just part of the historical plot of the Jews to destroy the Aryan race.
They planned a series of pogroms in response, to be carried out by government agents out of uniform, encouraging the public to join in.
Initially, he was to be tried in Paris. Once war began between Germany and France, the lawyer asked for an immediate trial, figuring that an acquittal was likely. But as the German army approached, Grynszpan escaped.
In The Florida Star v. B. J. F, 491 U.S. 524, 526 (1989), a rape victim sued a newspaper for printing her name, arguing that it violated a Florida law protecting her privacy.
Even though the name of a rape victim is substantially less newsworthy than the name of a public official, the Supreme Court of the United States said that publishing that name was protected by the First Amendment.
When you say we don't have "jurisdiction" over them you have to come up with some tortured definition where if you can imagine a law does not apply to illegal immigrants (or people here on a visa), that means no jurisidiction.
But one problem with that is that children are also exempt from many laws, adult criminal responsibility, the draft, etcetera, and yet no one would argue that they aren't subject to American jurisdiction.