National Guard on standby. The Supreme Court needs to go ahead and rule on Roe vs. Wade. Let's do this and light this candle!!!!

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

National Guard on standby. The Supreme Court needs to go ahead and rule on Roe vs. Wade. Let's do this and light this candle!!!!

---

Just pass out the live ammo and let's go.

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The leak and associated threats against SCOUTS are exponentially a greater "threat to democracy" than a few idiots vandalizing the Capitol.

---

Noting new there. SCOTUS has been a threat to democracy a number of times over the life of our country. This kerfuffle pales compared to Dred Scott, Plessy, Roe, Obergefell, etc.... And in context, the leak was merely an effort to forestall a repair (overturning Roe).

Cleaning up messes is messy work.

---

I meant more from a process perspective. While I can disagree with particular opinions, violent, radical extremists threatening the integrity of the Court is a legitimate threat to democracy. I must be ruled by laws not mobs of extremists.

---

But threatening the integrity of the electoral vote is no big deal.

---

it is a very big deal. Stop acting like it could have been changed by some angry protesters

They are trying to change it in many ways like the 270 project. If they get it done, your vote in the fly overs will no longer count. They already messed up the way the govt was supposed to work with the 17th admendment. This will be another step in seperating power from the state and centralizing power at the national level.

This is what should alarm you.. the Jan 6th stuff is smoke screen political theater..

---

Angry protests aren't likely to change Supreme Court decisions either, at least not any time soon. But in both cases the threat is there.

Of course things like NPVIC alarm me. That's a different topic. Nor does it matter that Democrats are looking to benefit from the J6 hearings. That's the nature of the party system. If you care about threats to the Court, or the Electoral College, you should care no matter who's making political hay.

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The leak and associated threats against SCOUTS are exponentially a greater "threat to democracy" than a few idiots vandalizing the Capitol.

---

Noting new there. SCOTUS has been a threat to democracy a number of times over the life of our country. This kerfuffle pales compared to Dred Scott, Plessy, Roe, Obergefell, etc.... And in context, the leak was merely an effort to forestall a repair (overturning Roe).

Cleaning up messes is messy work.

---

I meant more from a process perspective. While I can disagree with particular opinions, violent, radical extremists threatening the integrity of the Court is a legitimate threat to democracy. I must be ruled by laws not mobs of extremists.

---

But threatening the integrity of the electoral vote is no big deal.

---

it is a very big deal. Stop acting like it could have been changed by some angry protesters

They are trying to change it in many ways like the 270 project. If they get it done, your vote in the fly overs will no longer count. They already messed up the way the govt was supposed to work with the 17th admendment. This will be another step in seperating power from the state and centralizing power at the national level.

This is what should alarm you.. the Jan 6th stuff is smoke screen political theater..

---

Angry protests aren't likely to change Supreme Court decisions either, at least not any time soon. But in both cases the threat is there.

Of course things like NPVIC alarm me. That's a different topic. Nor does it matter that Democrats are looking to benefit from the J6 hearings. That's the nature of the party system. If you care about threats to the Court, or the Electoral College, you should care no matter who's making political hay.

---

You don't know country club Republicans.

They are terrified of angry liberal protests and almost always give in.

Were you not alive for the BLM riots?

Republicans in Mississippi changed their entire state flag, Tennessee republicans took down statues and busts in the state house, Republican controlled states took down more statues and at a faster pace than democratic controlled states.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The leak and associated threats against SCOUTS are exponentially a greater "threat to democracy" than a few idiots vandalizing the Capitol.

---

Noting new there. SCOTUS has been a threat to democracy a number of times over the life of our country. This kerfuffle pales compared to Dred Scott, Plessy, Roe, Obergefell, etc.... And in context, the leak was merely an effort to forestall a repair (overturning Roe).

Cleaning up messes is messy work.

---

I meant more from a process perspective. While I can disagree with particular opinions, violent, radical extremists threatening the integrity of the Court is a legitimate threat to democracy. I must be ruled by laws not mobs of extremists.

---

But threatening the integrity of the electoral vote is no big deal.

---

it is a very big deal. Stop acting like it could have been changed by some angry protesters

They are trying to change it in many ways like the 270 project. If they get it done, your vote in the fly overs will no longer count. They already messed up the way the govt was supposed to work with the 17th admendment. This will be another step in seperating power from the state and centralizing power at the national level.

This is what should alarm you.. the Jan 6th stuff is smoke screen political theater..

---

Angry protests aren't likely to change Supreme Court decisions either, at least not any time soon. But in both cases the threat is there.

Of course things like NPVIC alarm me. That's a different topic. Nor does it matter that Democrats are looking to benefit from the J6 hearings. That's the nature of the party system. If you care about threats to the Court, or the Electoral College, you should care no matter who's making political hay.

---

You don't know country club Republicans.

They are terrified of angry liberal protests and almost always give in.

Were you not alive for the BLM riots?

Republicans in Mississippi changed their entire state flag, Tennessee republicans took down statues and busts in the state house, Republican controlled states took down more statues and at a faster pace than democratic controlled states.

---

Politicians are supposed to consider public opinion. Judges not so much.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The leak and associated threats against SCOUTS are exponentially a greater "threat to democracy" than a few idiots vandalizing the Capitol.

---

Noting new there. SCOTUS has been a threat to democracy a number of times over the life of our country. This kerfuffle pales compared to Dred Scott, Plessy, Roe, Obergefell, etc.... And in context, the leak was merely an effort to forestall a repair (overturning Roe).

Cleaning up messes is messy work.

---

I meant more from a process perspective. While I can disagree with particular opinions, violent, radical extremists threatening the integrity of the Court is a legitimate threat to democracy. I must be ruled by laws not mobs of extremists.

---

But threatening the integrity of the electoral vote is no big deal.

---

it is a very big deal. Stop acting like it could have been changed by some angry protesters

They are trying to change it in many ways like the 270 project. If they get it done, your vote in the fly overs will no longer count. They already messed up the way the govt was supposed to work with the 17th admendment. This will be another step in seperating power from the state and centralizing power at the national level.

This is what should alarm you.. the Jan 6th stuff is smoke screen political theater..

---

Angry protests aren't likely to change Supreme Court decisions either, at least not any time soon. But in both cases the threat is there.

Of course things like NPVIC alarm me. That's a different topic. Nor does it matter that Democrats are looking to benefit from the J6 hearings. That's the nature of the party system. If you care about threats to the Court, or the Electoral College, you should care no matter who's making political hay.

---

You don't know country club Republicans.

They are terrified of angry liberal protests and almost always give in.

Were you not alive for the BLM riots?

Republicans in Mississippi changed their entire state flag, Tennessee republicans took down statues and busts in the state house, Republican controlled states took down more statues and at a faster pace than democratic controlled states.

---

Politicians are supposed to consider public opinion. Judges not so much.

---

Agree,

So what is the purpose of republicans who ignore the will of their actual voters?

If you want a party that listen to activists and tears down our history you have democrats.

Republican leaders seem to actually enjoy screwing over their voters.

Not a single statue could have been removed over the past 7 years by majority state vote.

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The leak and associated threats against SCOUTS are exponentially a greater "threat to democracy" than a few idiots vandalizing the Capitol.

---

Noting new there. SCOTUS has been a threat to democracy a number of times over the life of our country. This kerfuffle pales compared to Dred Scott, Plessy, Roe, Obergefell, etc.... And in context, the leak was merely an effort to forestall a repair (overturning Roe).

Cleaning up messes is messy work.

---

I meant more from a process perspective. While I can disagree with particular opinions, violent, radical extremists threatening the integrity of the Court is a legitimate threat to democracy. I must be ruled by laws not mobs of extremists.

---

But threatening the integrity of the electoral vote is no big deal.

---

it is a very big deal. Stop acting like it could have been changed by some angry protesters

They are trying to change it in many ways like the 270 project. If they get it done, your vote in the fly overs will no longer count. They already messed up the way the govt was supposed to work with the 17th admendment. This will be another step in seperating power from the state and centralizing power at the national level.

This is what should alarm you.. the Jan 6th stuff is smoke screen political theater..

---

Angry protests aren't likely to change Supreme Court decisions either, at least not any time soon. But in both cases the threat is there.

Of course things like NPVIC alarm me. That's a different topic. Nor does it matter that Democrats are looking to benefit from the J6 hearings. That's the nature of the party system. If you care about threats to the Court, or the Electoral College, you should care no matter who's making political hay.

---

only 2 things threaten the supreme court.. court packing and assassination. The lack of protection this admin has given the court is criminal..

Biden predicts "mini revolution" in November if SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade https://t.co/Iyhz6dSzZl pic.twitter.com/RImuyO3Ett

— The Hill (@thehill) June 9, 2022

"On Thursday, Biden said he was looking at executive orders that he may pass if the precedent is overturned, but did not expand on what those would be."

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The leak and associated threats against SCOUTS are exponentially a greater "threat to democracy" than a few idiots vandalizing the Capitol.

---

Noting new there. SCOTUS has been a threat to democracy a number of times over the life of our country. This kerfuffle pales compared to Dred Scott, Plessy, Roe, Obergefell, etc.... And in context, the leak was merely an effort to forestall a repair (overturning Roe).

Cleaning up messes is messy work.

---

I meant more from a process perspective. While I can disagree with particular opinions, violent, radical extremists threatening the integrity of the Court is a legitimate threat to democracy. I must be ruled by laws not mobs of extremists.

---

But threatening the integrity of the electoral vote is no big deal.

---

Well it occurred after the 2000, 2004, elections and in an unprecedented way after the 2016 election and didn't seem to bother you.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The leak and associated threats against SCOUTS are exponentially a greater "threat to democracy" than a few idiots vandalizing the Capitol.

---

Noting new there. SCOTUS has been a threat to democracy a number of times over the life of our country. This kerfuffle pales compared to Dred Scott, Plessy, Roe, Obergefell, etc.... And in context, the leak was merely an effort to forestall a repair (overturning Roe).

Cleaning up messes is messy work.

---

I meant more from a process perspective. While I can disagree with particular opinions, violent, radical extremists threatening the integrity of the Court is a legitimate threat to democracy. I must be ruled by laws not mobs of extremists.

---

But threatening the integrity of the electoral vote is no big deal.

---

Well it occurred after the 2000, 2004, elections and in an unprecedented way after the 2016 election and didn't seem to bother you.

---

Nonsense.

Cobretti said:

---

Biden predicts "mini revolution" in November if SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade https://t.co/Iyhz6dSzZl pic.twitter.com/RImuyO3Ett

— The Hill (@thehill) June 9, 2022

"On Thursday, Biden said he was looking at executive orders that he may pass if the precedent is overturned, but did not expand on what those would be."

---

inciting insurrection, plain & simple.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The leak and associated threats against SCOUTS are exponentially a greater "threat to democracy" than a few idiots vandalizing the Capitol.

---

Noting new there. SCOTUS has been a threat to democracy a number of times over the life of our country. This kerfuffle pales compared to Dred Scott, Plessy, Roe, Obergefell, etc.... And in context, the leak was merely an effort to forestall a repair (overturning Roe).

Cleaning up messes is messy work.

---

I meant more from a process perspective. While I can disagree with particular opinions, violent, radical extremists threatening the integrity of the Court is a legitimate threat to democracy. I must be ruled by laws not mobs of extremists.

---

But threatening the integrity of the electoral vote is no big deal.

---

Well it occurred after the 2000, 2004, elections and in an unprecedented way after the 2016 election and didn't seem to bother you.

---

What are you talking about? Al Gore fought his case in the courts, lost and conceded. That is how it is supposed to work.

https://www.history.com/.amp/this-day-in-history/al-gore-concedes-presidential-election

Booray said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The leak and associated threats against SCOUTS are exponentially a greater "threat to democracy" than a few idiots vandalizing the Capitol.

---

Noting new there. SCOTUS has been a threat to democracy a number of times over the life of our country. This kerfuffle pales compared to Dred Scott, Plessy, Roe, Obergefell, etc.... And in context, the leak was merely an effort to forestall a repair (overturning Roe).

Cleaning up messes is messy work.

---

I meant more from a process perspective. While I can disagree with particular opinions, violent, radical extremists threatening the integrity of the Court is a legitimate threat to democracy. I must be ruled by laws not mobs of extremists.

---

But threatening the integrity of the electoral vote is no big deal.

---

Well it occurred after the 2000, 2004, elections and in an unprecedented way after the 2016 election and didn't seem to bother you.

---

What are you talking about? Al Gore fought his case in the courts, lost and conceded. That is how it is supposed to work.

https://www.history.com/.amp/this-day-in-history/al-gore-concedes-presidential-election

---

We spent $40M and distracted a nation for three years of a Clinton campaign-financed Russian hoax, and she still parrots that the 2016 election was stolen as do many lunatics. Do you remember all the celebrities telling electors to deny their constitutional duty and vote against the will of the people because "Russia?" Yeah, guessing you probably forgot about that.

Cobretti said:

---

---

I was waiting to see the Jar Jar Binks cameo.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Booray said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The leak and associated threats against SCOUTS are exponentially a greater "threat to democracy" than a few idiots vandalizing the Capitol.

---

Noting new there. SCOTUS has been a threat to democracy a number of times over the life of our country. This kerfuffle pales compared to Dred Scott, Plessy, Roe, Obergefell, etc.... And in context, the leak was merely an effort to forestall a repair (overturning Roe).

Cleaning up messes is messy work.

---

I meant more from a process perspective. While I can disagree with particular opinions, violent, radical extremists threatening the integrity of the Court is a legitimate threat to democracy. I must be ruled by laws not mobs of extremists.

---

But threatening the integrity of the electoral vote is no big deal.

---

Well it occurred after the 2000, 2004, elections and in an unprecedented way after the 2016 election and didn't seem to bother you.

---

What are you talking about? Al Gore fought his case in the courts, lost and conceded. That is how it is supposed to work.

https://www.history.com/.amp/this-day-in-history/al-gore-concedes-presidential-election

---

We spent $40M and distracted a nation for three years of a Clinton campaign-financed Russian hoax, and she still parrots that the 2016 election was stolen as do many lunatics. Do you remember all the celebrities telling electors to deny their constitutional duty and vote against the will of the people because "Russia?" Yeah, guessing you probably forgot about that.

---

First, I notice you said nothing about 2000, which was the direct question.

Second, the Mueller investigation paid for itself or nearly so.

Third, the "we" in the Mueller investigation was mainly Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions, who created the special counsel.

Fourth, the idea that the Trump campaign in 2016 was pure is absurd. Robert Mueller said he could not prove a crime, which I accept. There is a mountain of evidence, however, that the Trump campaign was willing to accept Russian assistance if offered. The American people need to know that.

Fifth, whatever discontent Trump's election caused the left did not result in a riot aimed at stopping the transfer of power and an avalanche of faux election reforms designed to diminish democracy.

False equivalency to the nth degree.

Yeah, there was no recount demands and democrats shutting republicans out of the vote tallying room back in 2000. It was all smooth and simple. "Hanging chads" didn't become seared into the American psyche or anything.

Booray said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Booray said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The leak and associated threats against SCOUTS are exponentially a greater "threat to democracy" than a few idiots vandalizing the Capitol.

---

Noting new there. SCOTUS has been a threat to democracy a number of times over the life of our country. This kerfuffle pales compared to Dred Scott, Plessy, Roe, Obergefell, etc.... And in context, the leak was merely an effort to forestall a repair (overturning Roe).

Cleaning up messes is messy work.

---

I meant more from a process perspective. While I can disagree with particular opinions, violent, radical extremists threatening the integrity of the Court is a legitimate threat to democracy. I must be ruled by laws not mobs of extremists.

---

But threatening the integrity of the electoral vote is no big deal.

---

Well it occurred after the 2000, 2004, elections and in an unprecedented way after the 2016 election and didn't seem to bother you.

---

What are you talking about? Al Gore fought his case in the courts, lost and conceded. That is how it is supposed to work.

https://www.history.com/.amp/this-day-in-history/al-gore-concedes-presidential-election

---

We spent $40M and distracted a nation for three years of a Clinton campaign-financed Russian hoax, and she still parrots that the 2016 election was stolen as do many lunatics. Do you remember all the celebrities telling electors to deny their constitutional duty and vote against the will of the people because "Russia?" Yeah, guessing you probably forgot about that.

---

First, I notice you said nothing about 2000, which was the direct question.

Second, the Mueller investigation paid for itself or nearly so.

Third, the "we" in the Mueller investigation was mainly Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions, who created the special counsel.

Fourth, the idea that the Trump campaign in 2016 was pure is absurd. Robert Mueller said he could not prove a crime, which I accept. There is a mountain of evidence, however, that the Trump campaign was willing to accept Russian assistance if offered. The American people need to know that.

Fifth, whatever discontent Trump's election caused the left did not result in a riot aimed at stopping the transfer of power and an avalanche of faux election reforms designed to diminish democracy.

False equivalency to the nth degree.

---

you were doing ok until you got to fifth.. thats mostly nonsense

Booray said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Booray said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The leak and associated threats against SCOUTS are exponentially a greater "threat to democracy" than a few idiots vandalizing the Capitol.

---

Noting new there. SCOTUS has been a threat to democracy a number of times over the life of our country. This kerfuffle pales compared to Dred Scott, Plessy, Roe, Obergefell, etc.... And in context, the leak was merely an effort to forestall a repair (overturning Roe).

Cleaning up messes is messy work.

---

I meant more from a process perspective. While I can disagree with particular opinions, violent, radical extremists threatening the integrity of the Court is a legitimate threat to democracy. I must be ruled by laws not mobs of extremists.

---

But threatening the integrity of the electoral vote is no big deal.

---

Well it occurred after the 2000, 2004, elections and in an unprecedented way after the 2016 election and didn't seem to bother you.

---

What are you talking about? Al Gore fought his case in the courts, lost and conceded. That is how it is supposed to work.

https://www.history.com/.amp/this-day-in-history/al-gore-concedes-presidential-election

---

We spent $40M and distracted a nation for three years of a Clinton campaign-financed Russian hoax, and she still parrots that the 2016 election was stolen as do many lunatics. Do you remember all the celebrities telling electors to deny their constitutional duty and vote against the will of the people because "Russia?" Yeah, guessing you probably forgot about that.

---

First, I notice you said nothing about 2000, which was the direct question.

Second, the Mueller investigation paid for itself or nearly so.

Third, the "we" in the Mueller investigation was mainly Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions, who created the special counsel.

Fourth, the idea that the Trump campaign in 2016 was pure is absurd. Robert Mueller said he could not prove a crime, which I accept. There is a mountain of evidence, however, that the Trump campaign was willing to accept Russian assistance if offered. The American people need to know that.

Fifth, whatever discontent Trump's election caused the left did not result in a riot aimed at stopping the transfer of power and an avalanche of faux election reforms designed to diminish democracy.

False equivalency to the nth degree.

---

What about the 2000 election? Some Democrats still claim it was stolen.

Some Democrats challenged the 2004 election results.

We spent $40M on a Clinton-funded hoax.

It's not a false equivalency it's just you're avoiding the obvious realities and obsessed with a 20 men in Buffalo costumes acting like *******s.

The beta hysterics about Jan. 6 is to avoid talking about record inflation, stock market collapse, grooming as priority #1, Joe's Russian connections, record fentanyl deaths, drugs, guns and criminals flooding across the open border, Joe's China connections, baby formula shortages, record violent crime increases, etc. But yeah, Americans are really focused on Buffalo Man - that's what's keeping them up at night.

...

The Supreme Court indicates that both Monday and Wednesday of next week will be opinion days.

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 9, 2022

Cobretti said:

---

...

The Supreme Court indicates that both Monday and Wednesday of next week will be opinion days.

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 9, 2022

---

Shhh! That is nothing. Every day is opinion day at Sic'em 365.

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

...

The Supreme Court indicates that both Monday and Wednesday of next week will be opinion days.

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 9, 2022

---

Shhh! That is nothing. Every day is opinion day at Sic'em 365.

---

No one is protesting where I live. I must be doing something wrong.

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

...

The Supreme Court indicates that both Monday and Wednesday of next week will be opinion days.

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 9, 2022

---

Shhh! That is nothing. Every day is opinion day at Sic'em 365.

---

Bazinga! Blue star for you!!

Keeps happening around the country https://t.co/QgyKcRSfqn

— Daniel Darling (@dandarling) June 9, 2022

Protesters have now descended upon the home of Justice Amy Coney Barrett and her family, including seven children. This is just a day after the alleged attempted murder of her colleague, Justice Kavanaugh.

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 9, 2022

To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community—the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms.

— Lori Lightfoot (@LoriLightfoot) May 10, 2022

Two weeks ago, Democrat Lori Lightfoot absolutely FREAKED OUT on a reporter who asked if she would "rescind" her tweet encouraging a "call to arms" against the Supreme Court.

Yesterday, there was an attempt to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. pic.twitter.com/1ZzZP3XGI6

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 9, 2022

In most other places in the world, this would reasonably be seen as an extra-legal effort by one party to rebalance SCOTUS to its favor.....grassroots organizations of said party to incite mobs to the front yards of justices, federal law enforcement controlled by said party to refuse to arrest & disperse those mobs in clear violation of federal law, the Congress controlled by said party to refuse to deploy extra security funding, all for the purpose of creating conditions which could reasonably be expected to cause the demise of one or more justices so that the sitting POTUS of said party could appoint one or more justices more suitable to the liking of said party for confirmation to a senate controlled by that same party.

res ipsa loquitur

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The leak and associated threats against SCOUTS are exponentially a greater "threat to democracy" than a few idiots vandalizing the Capitol.

---

Not even close.

whiterock said:

---

In most other places in the world, this would reasonably be seen as an extra-legal effort by one party to rebalance SCOTUS to its favor.....grassroots organizations of said party to incite mobs to the front yards of justices, federal law enforcement controlled by said party to refuse to arrest & disperse those mobs in clear violation of federal law, the Congress controlled by said party to refuse to deploy extra security funding, all for the purpose of creating conditions which could reasonably be expected to cause the demise of one or more justices so that the sitting POTUS of said party could appoint one or more justices more suitable to the liking of said party for confirmation to a senate controlled by that same party.

res ipsa loquitur

---

They would love for that to happen.

quash said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The leak and associated threats against SCOUTS are exponentially a greater "threat to democracy" than a few idiots vandalizing the Capitol.

---

Not even close.

---

attempted assassination of a SCOTUS justice is worse than the jan 6th riots. You and I both know it would fundamentally change the courts opinion on all future cases

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The leak and associated threats against SCOUTS are exponentially a greater "threat to democracy" than a few idiots vandalizing the Capitol.

---

Not even close.

---

attempted assassination of a SCOTUS justice is worse than the jan 6th riots. You and I both know it would fundamentally change the courts opinion on all future cases

---

If you think being ruled by Nine is bad, just wait until you see how bad it gets when they can be overruled by the fear of one.

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The leak and associated threats against SCOUTS are exponentially a greater "threat to democracy" than a few idiots vandalizing the Capitol.

---

Not even close.

---

attempted assassination of a SCOTUS justice is worse than the jan 6th riots. You and I both know it would fundamentally change the courts opinion on all future cases

---

Not even close.

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The leak and associated threats against SCOUTS are exponentially a greater "threat to democracy" than a few idiots vandalizing the Capitol.

---

Not even close.

---

attempted assassination of a SCOTUS justice is worse than the jan 6th riots. You and I both know it would fundamentally change the courts opinion on all future cases

---

True


The Jan 6th 'riot' was a symbolic act more than anything else. Bunch of clueless dummies on a mindless frolic. The worst of them don't hold a candle compared to the professional anarchists in Portland or Chicago .


Meanwhile

The assassination of just 2 individuals on the Supreme Court would drastically alter the direction of the country .

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The leak and associated threats against SCOUTS are exponentially a greater "threat to democracy" than a few idiots vandalizing the Capitol.

---

Not even close.

---

attempted assassination of a SCOTUS justice is worse than the jan 6th riots. You and I both know it would fundamentally change the courts opinion on all future cases

---

Not even close.

---

you are right, Jan 6th is not even close

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The leak and associated threats against SCOUTS are exponentially a greater "threat to democracy" than a few idiots vandalizing the Capitol.

---

Not even close.

---

attempted assassination of a SCOTUS justice is worse than the jan 6th riots. You and I both know it would fundamentally change the courts opinion on all future cases

---

Not even close.

---

Then you truly are a ****ing idiot