3 ms·

These attacks on the Supreme Court are a subtle way to overthrow a government you disagree with.

• cafard 3y ago
  Are they? A couple of years ago, I had to remind some disgruntled friends that a very popular president, at the height of his popularity, put out the idea of expanding the court, and failed entirely. You could look it up. Thomas Jefferson, who had solid majorities, tried and failed to remove the obnoxious Federalist Samuel Chase. How about "This pissing in the wind is a subtle way to change a weather pattern you dislike?"
  • TheCaptain4815 3y ago
    Yes they are. Look at how FDR threatened the Supreme Court during his presidency to get his way. The courts have always been attacked by the left to push their political agenda.
• WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  The overthrowing of the the Supreme Court is done. It's been years in the making https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/how-conservatives-won-the-battle-over-the-courts/564533/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/how-conser... and the attacks have been fueled by vast sums of money https://www.propublica.org/article/leonard-leo-scotus-elections-nonprofits-discrimination https://www.propublica.org/article/leonard-leo-scotus-electi...
• notacoward 3y ago
  That's a weird assumption - that the court, and only the court, represents the real government. It's like the "unitary executive" theory but for the court. Here's an idea: the US constitution defines three branches, none subservient to the others. If any were to take precedence, most people would point to the elected branches. In common parlance "the government" mostly refers to the executive, sometimes the legislature, never the judiciary. Supporting justices who are overstepping their bounds by legislating from the bench (and quite likely doing so at donors' behest) is a not-so-subtle way to overthrow a government.