It’s kind of my standing question to the cons supporting the recent Dobbs decision overturning Roe v Wade. It goes like this. One of the lying kangaroo “justices” on the court, Clarence Thomas, is a black man. He’s married to a white woman (who happens to be a traitor to America). He CLAIMS to be an “originalist,” meaning he pretends the original intent of the founders should be the primary consideration in rulings. So…setting aside the obvious conflict in the idea that, ORIGINALLY, he could never even have BEEN on the court in the first place, do you think he’s going to vote against inter-racial marriage? Do you think Thomas thinks Thomas should only get 3/5 of a vote, an explicit “original intent” of the founders?

At the time of the signing of the Constitution, TWO of the pretended “originalist” members of the court, Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, were generally considered property, not people. MY guess is that they’ve BOTH managed to find some wiggle room in THAT “original” assumption…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And there it is…
On Friday, July 2, President Biden made a comment about the recent abortion of justice handed down by the kangaroo court and said, basically, somebody ought to do something. Gee, ya think? Sadly, he added, we don’t have the votes to overturn the filibuster. “Filibuster” has become a Democratic weasel-word. A weasel word is a word (or phrase) used to evade responsibility. I’ve long held that the job of Democrats in America, these days, is to lose to the Republicans. The declared filibuster is one of their very best tools for doing so. The Democrats pretend there are only two sides to this debate – either have the declared filibuster in full force, or eliminate the filibuster completely. That’s not true.

See, the real aberration, here, is the “declared” part of the declared filibuster. Somewhere along the way, our Keystone Congress perverted the intent of the filibuster. There was a time when a filibuster was a perfectly legitimate tool used to protest pending legislation – but the politician in question had to physically hold the floor with a speech for however long he could. (For reference, watch the movie, ‘Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.’) Then, the rule changed and any congress critter could block legislation by simply declaring his intent to filibuster. It was treated as though a “think” was as good as a “do.”

But talking filibusters used to fail from time to time. Declared filibusters never do and are a solid backstop for the Democrat’s feckless failings. But you can already see, can’t you? There’s no need to eliminate the filibuster completely. Simply return to the talking filibuster and the tool remains in place but requires the extra effort to employ. Things get done. To MY mind, that’s WHY the Dems don’t correct it. That’s WHY the pretense is “all or nothing.”
“Ah, shoot,” say the Dems, “We REALLY wanted to do something about (fill in the popular position on…well, anything, really) but that gosh-darn filibuster won’t let us.” Perfect. Losers.

Wavered
I have to confess, with each new horrifying ruling being handed down by this kangaroo court, I HAVE wavered a bit about the 2016 election. Perhaps progressives SHOULD have held their collective noses and voted for Hillary in 2016 to “hold the line.” I’m SURE she would not have appointed three moronic, ideologue, activist (and, apparently, self-loathing) judges to the court. But then I remember, neither would Bernie have done and my mind won’t let go of the question as to why it came down to the court in 2016 in the first place. I loved RBG, but she HAD racked up a few years AND she was battling cancer. She should have stepped down when requested. When Scalia unexpectedly died, Moscow Mitch illegally blocked Obama’s choice. I have no information the Obama administration appealed that theft to the courts – or took any other action for that matter – trying to force McConnell to do his job in a timely fashion. In typical Democratic fashion, they just laid down. FIFTY years, Democrats have had to address the situation. FIFTY years, they did nothing. The cons came out the day Roe was handed down and declared their intent to overturn the ruling. (After all, what an awesome opportunity to harm poor people…) The cons never stopped trying to overturn Roe. The Democrats never STARTED trying to protect it. Then, suddenly, it’s all progressives fault? It just doesn’t track with the facts in evidence…

In 2016, there were two wildly popular candidates. They were wildly popular because they were promising to try to change things. Bernie wanted to change things for the better. Trump wanted to change things to the wreckage we see all around us today. The DNC, having already sold the nomination to Hillary, sidelined the far more popular Bernie then went with “You’ve got NO CHOICE but to support our nothingness.” This, at a time when the masses were furious and fed-up with “nothingness.” Apparently, the progressives DID have a choice – and STILL the Democrats have nothing to offer but words. Thoughts and prayers…

I’ll tell you this: I’m pretty sure loyalist Democrats won’t…can’t understand my point any more than a loyalist con can allow themselves to see the crimes of the Trump crime family. Wrongheaded denial is hardly confined to the right…