So You Say You Want a Revolution? You Can Count Me Out

Below is my column in the Hill on overheated rhetoric of revolution that seems to have overtaken our public discourse, particularly with regard to the Supreme Court. This week, Arizona Democrats pushed a “F–k the Fourth Event” and told people to “Bring comfortable shoes, water, lawn chairs, posters, and your anger.”  It appears that the open secret is that we are “always angry” in the new Hulk-like smash politics.

Here is the column:

“That’s my secret. I’m always angry.” Those words from the Hulk in “The Avengers” came to mind as liberals turned on the Supreme Court this week, calling for everything from impeaching or “disciplining” justices to scrapping the entire court. That included actor Mark Ruffalo, who plays the film-version Hulk, declaring that the court is “a political tool for the extremist, fascist faction of the GOP” and “we must revolt.”

On this July 4 weekend, revolution again seems to be in the air. Even before the recent decision overturning Roe v. Wade, congressional Democrats like Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) warned the Supreme Court to reaffirm Roe or face a “revolution.”

After major rulings on gun rights, abortion and climate change, Democratic leaders and pundits declared the court to be “illegitimate.” Democratic leaders seem to have time-warped back to the time before Marbury v. Madison in 1803, when the court ruled that it must be the final arbiter of what the law means.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) not only renewed her previous call to pack the court but said the court was illegitimate for rendering decisions against “widely held public opinion.” Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) said the court “defies the will of the people.” Reporter John Haltiwanger insisted that “the court is clearly not representative of the U.S. public. It’s supposed to be the people’s court.”

In reality, the court was never meant to be that. It was meant to be the Constitution’s court, designed to be able to stand against everyone and everything but the Constitution. In a system designed to protect the minority, the court (like the Constitution) is counter-majoritarian in much of what it does.

Until Marbury, there was an argument that Congress, not the court, could be the final arbiter of what the law says. That may have been the assumption of many, given our prior English system which allowed Parliament to interpret laws. That debate ended in 1803 when Chief Justice John Marshall declared that, while silent on this point, the intent of the Framers was to make the court the ultimate, final authority of what the law means and demands.

There were good-faith reasons to challenge Marshall at the time. After the decision, he was burned in effigy by those who saw the case as changing the Constitution without an amendment, just 15 years after its ratification.

However, putting aside the basis for the decision, it helped stabilize our system. We need a body to resolve such questions with finality and authority. As Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote in a 1953 Supreme Court decision, “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.”

Soon after Marbury was handed down, a new argument emerged that seems to be a Democratic talking point today. Some early Americans declared they would simply defy what the court ruled after Marbury. For example, after the court ruled in Worcester v. Georgia in favor of the Cherokee tribe, Georgia refused to obey the court; President Andrew Jackson allegedly said, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

Today, we hear the same calls for defiance. Former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann declared that it “has become necessary to dissolve” the Supreme Court, adding: “The first step is for a state to ignore this ruling. You’re a court? Why and how do [you] think you can enforce your rulings?”

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) as usual put it succinctly by yelling in front of the court: “The hell with the Supreme Court. We will defy them.

These are the voices of an earlier age, returned like a dormant virus to our body politic. It has been a particularly virulent strain in the Democratic Party from Thomas Jefferson (who is viewed as a precursor to the party and opposed Marshall) to Jackson (who challenged the authority of the court) to Franklin Delano Roosevelt who sought to pack the Court. For all of the chest-pounding after Marbury, federal and state governments both yielded to the court’s authority. In some ways, it is the most impressive aspect of our constitutional system. Without an army or police force (beyond a relatively small number of marshals), the Supreme Court has compelled compliance with the support of the public. Americans believe in the rule of law; it is in our political DNA. As a people, we are often bitterly divided but we have always recognized the court’s legitimacy and authority.

If Olbermann is channeling Andrew Jackson, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seems lately to be channeling Che Guevara. She previously questioned the court’s value, asking: “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.” After the Dobbs decision, she led protesters in Washington chanting “Illegitimate!” while adding, “We have to fill the streets. Right now, elections are not enough.”

Even as armchair revolutionaries, these politicians are not very convincing. It is the rage, not the revolution, that interests them. We are becoming addicted to rage, and these leaders traffic in rage to a junkie nation.

Rage can compel action, but rarely reason. Yet President Biden clearly wants to harness his party’s anger. He has long been viewed as a politician guided more by polls than principle; that is how he could express disgust over limits on abortion despite previously maintaining as a senator that abortion is “not a right but a tragedy.”

Politicians have the luxury of just following polls — but courts do not.

Biden’s “Hulk smash” moment is evident in his reckless call to end the Senate filibuster in order to enact a federal right to abortion. Seeing shifting polls, Biden has dropped his opposition to eliminating the filibuster despite once calling such a move “disastrous” for the country. He is now intent on making that disaster a reality.

It is truly the greatest example of rage over reason. The current composition of the court is due to Democrats killing the filibuster rule on Supreme Court nominations despite warnings that it would cost Democrats dearly. When they lost the Senate majority, it cost them not just three seats on the court but the Roe ruling, too.

Now, with predictions of Democrats losing both houses, Biden is calling to end the legislative filibuster. It is akin to the Titanic’s captain spotting the iceberg and immediately ordering the lifeboats to be burned.

Such politics is only likely to increase as we approach the midterms. The current push to pack, change or dispense with the court would have even greater costs. And the greatest cost will be the erosion of faith in our system among many voters. The Constitution is an article of faith that has withstood the tests of wars, economic crises and social upheaval. It was written not only for the worst of times, but in the worst of times — and ratified over the very same objections being raised by politicians and pundits today. It requires us to take a leap of faith, not just in our system but in each other.

That is why some of us take to heart the Beatles‘ lyrics: “So you say you want a revolution … you can count me out.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

113 thoughts on “So You Say You Want a Revolution? You Can Count Me Out”

  1. Per Joe Patrice of “Above the Law”: (screenshots of Turley’s tweets did not come through)

    “Someone Kidnapped Jonathan Turley And Replaced Him With The Dumbest Person On Earth Who Also Happens To Be Jonathan Turley
    Jonathan Turleys say the darnedest things!
    onJuly 1, 2022 at 1:58 PM

    The last time we checked in on GWU Law’s Jonathan Turley, I posited that he may not be as stupid as his writings, comments, or general persona indicates. He couldn’t really be this stupid, I reasoned, suggesting instead that Turley was just “crazy like a fox” and trying to guarantee that no law student ever takes one of his courses again, freeing him from the tedium of grading papers.

    But, no, he seems like he might just be an idiot.

    Consider his reaction to yesterday’s EPA opinion.

    All right, that’s not entirely inaccurate if disingenuous. But that ellipse sits there as a haunting invitation to proceed into Turley’s personal brand of madness.

    Curious, indeed! It’s almost as though Congress set up the nation’s environmental laws with the express intention of not shutting down the lawmaking apparatus of the United States to constantly quibble over specifics.

    It’s not “like a player complaining of being sent back into the game by the coach,” but like being told “we’ve shut off the running water so you can experience the satisfaction of marching into town to draw from the old well.” Congress used its power to establish this regime — the only one circumventing the power of Congress is the Supreme Court.

    This guy’s said some monstrously stupid stuff before — OFTEN! — but he’s acting shocked and bewildered by basic legal concepts. Either he’s gone to Beast Mode levels of cynical mendacity or he’s losing his grip on the subject matter as time goes on.

    And yet this isn’t the dumbest thing he said this week.

    During the most recent January 6 hearing, Turley tweeted:

    Yeah… that’s how this works. Are there people who never saw Jed Bartlet get overruled by Ron Butterfield when the president wanted to take his agent to a hospital?

    About 10 minutes after these tweets he started to backpedal a bit and acknowledged “…Again, the position of the security team was commendable. They are tasked with keeping the President safe and refused to take him into a dangerous area.” It seemed that someone who hadn’t had a commonsensectomy got to Turley and put him on track.

    This proved short-lived.

    Turley went to the shockingly non-discerning editorial staff at The Hill and published this effort to bridge the gap between reality and his fever dreams:

    It is unclear, though, what the Secret Service would have done if the president got out and tried to join his supporters in marching to the Capitol. The agents absolutely were correct that by doing so he would have put himself in danger — but the Secret Service cannot control the presidency by limiting the movement of a president. Otherwise, it can look like a modern Roman Praetorian Guard accused of dictating outcomes or events.

    It’s Bobby Engel not Jaime Lannister. Telling the president not to walk into a mob where — and I cannot stress this enough — multiple people were killed is not even in the same gladiatorial amphitheater as the Praetorian Guard offing Caligula.

    In the end, the security team was correct on the merits but probably wrong on the law. This was not an unlawful order, and a president must be able to control his own travel. In other words, the agents were wrong for all the right reasons.

    What in the actual f**k is he even talking about? Presidents are not gods, Johnny Boy. The Secret Service is mandated by law to protect the president and vice president. While federal law authorizes the Secret Service to protect other categories of individuals too, everyone other than the president and vice president may decline protection. But a president can’t unilaterally reject the protection of the Secret Service just like the president can’t reject other laws on a whim. It’s designed that way so the country isn’t plunged into a national security nightmare because a sundowning real estate developer decides to second guess law enforcement professionals.

    In a similar vein, maybe Turley could use some professional assistance too. Perhaps someone to hold his phone the next time he thinks about tweeting legal analysis without bothering to perform even cursory research into how the Secret Service works?

    Just a thought.

    At least I was willing to give Turley the benefit of the doubt by saying that the stupid things he writes were purchased by Fox. Like today’s piece. Why should the majority of Americans sit still and allow the polticians wearing black robes, appointed by an election cheater, take away civil and personal rights that have been fought over for more than 50 years? Say you want a revolution? We already had one.

    1. I knew, without any room left for doubt, that Turley was just a paid hack when he tried to argue for a 4th evidentiary standard when Kavanaugh was undergoing hearings after being nominated. Any run of the mill lawyer knows there are 3: beyond a reasonable doubt (the highest burden–for criminal matters), preponderance of the evidence (the lowest burden, for civil matters) and clear and convincing evidence (an intermediate standard for certain civil matters, like termination of parental rights or revocation of a professional license).

    2. Don’t forget folks that Natacha said that RussiaGate was all true, that the laptop wasn’t Hunters laptop and Covid could not possibly have originated in a Chinese lab. These things should be considered whenever you asses the quality of her posts. It makes one wonder if her pseudonym isn’t Pocahontas.

      1. These things should be considered whenever you asses (sic) the quality of her posts.


      2. Nothing but more of your Lies!!

        Covid 19 & CV19 mRNA death shots.

        Track back Chapel Hill NC, patients held by Barrett & other peoples patients.

      3. I responded to this earlier, but my post was removed. There’s no “RussiaGate”. It has been proven that the campaign of the orange one you worship fed sensitive insider polling information to Russian hackers who targeted vulnerable voters in key precincts in certain swing states, to tilt the vote enough to win the Electoral College. This was proven by admissible evidence, like depositions and court testimony. Dan Coats, head of US Intelligence agencies, appointed by Trump, confirmed that this is true, so Trump fired him. What do you have? Hannity and Tucker? Nope.

        About the (who gives a sh*t) Hunter laptop, I said that Giuliani claimed a Trump supporter who owned a Delaware computer repair shop gave it to him, and that he would use what he claimed was salacious material on the hard drive to try to throw Biden off of his game in the second debate. This was after Trump flopped badly in the first debate. You’ve falsely accused me of claiming that the (who gives a sh*t) “Hunter Biden Scandal” was Russian disinformation. I never said that, and you know it. I don’t know what is on the hard drive, and I don’t care. The “Hunter Biden Scandal” is just a deflection away from the truth of how outrageously incompetent and corrupt the one you worship is.

        About COVID I said that no one knows for sure what the origin is. That remains true. To claim it originated from a Chinese lab, or that it is germ warfare is speculation at best and an outright lie at worst. You don’t know. No one does.

    3. All you have proved is the stupidity of Turley’s detractors.

    4. With respect to EPA.

      Congress makes the law – not agencies.

      I disagree with SCOTUS’s Major Questions doctrine – it should be an All Questions Doctrine.

      The role of the executive i to Enforce the law – not create it.
      Congress can not delegate law making any more than the executive can delegate enforcing the law.

      Of course there is the separate issue – which is not in the domain of the supreme Court,

      What idiot thinks that CO2 is a pollutant ?

    5. You post a long quote about an event that never happened.

      But addressing the hypotheticals.

      It is not illegal for the president to resist the Secret service – it is just unlikely that a 70 year old many will succeed against multiple fit secret service agents.

      This whole debate is stupid – because there is no crime in it anywhere – not even a hint of a crime.

      The secret service is obligated to keep protected people safe – even against their will.
      Their criteria is safety, and that is all that purportedly is at issue.

      Not Whether Trump was permitted to go to the Capital – obviously he was.
      Even Hutchinson’s testimoney does not say he could not go there only that Secret Service did not have the resources to protect him if he did.

  2. AOC says that elections are not enough. Just picture AOC in camo fatigues. Eww, you want me to hold that nasty rifle. “Wait, I don’t mean that I have to personally do any of the bloody fighting. I have my constituents who will hold those slimy rifles. However, guns should not be banned when we use them for OUR revolution.” She should be saying what her hero Che Guevara said when he called for a revolution. He said, hand me a rifle. People look on false bravado with the disdain it deserves. Joining her in camo will be Maxine Waters, Pocahontas, and ten dollar a pint for ice cream Pelosi. Picture all three of them with the camo and blackface of the battle field. Now that’s a funny picture I don’t care who you are.

    1. AOC says that elections are not enough

      Marx and Engel had no patience for democracy never mind elections. They rejected democracy outright. Theirs was a politic of brute force, golpe de estado (as Fidel Castro preached), aka coup d’état, which is why AOC, age 32, promotes violence via her rhetoric. She is too stupid and young to know the atrocities of Joseph Stalin, Mao, Fidel Castro, et al. Yet, with an income of 6 figures, she advocates “equity” of the masses while being at the very top of the pyramid. She is another Che Guevara. She would not bat an eye in putting a pistol to the head of anyone she “felt” (since she is run by her amygdala) were standing in the way of her 32 year old fantasy world, just like Che, Fidel, Hugo Chavez, Ernesto Maduro, et al

      Marx’s philosophy and the *necessity* of violent politics

      One set of reasons is about impatience with political change in a democracy or republic. To be successful in those systems, socialists must first get organized. But that will take time, and they will lose elections. Finally, they’ll win some elections, but still be a minority in the lower legislative chamber. After more time, they’ll get a majority in the lower chamber, but legislation will be vetoed by the upper chamber. Eventually the socialists may also get a majority in the upper chamber, but their bills will be vetoed by the president and/or the judiciary. At the same time, the education and journalism establishments will be against socialism or become reformist slowly. marx-chair-150pxEven if socialists overcome all of the above obstacles, the rich bourgeoisie will bribe whomever to stay in power. Or they’ll use the police and military to suppress threats. Who has the patience to endure all of that?

  3. What are the circumstances, if any, in which State A can prosecute someone for an act committed in State B when the act is not considered a crime in State B?

    I assume if State B agrees the act is a crime, extradition to State B is still necessary. True or not true?

    Not a lawyer, and I’ve been curious about these questions for a while. Grateful for any enlightenment.

  4. John Lennon actually sings, ” You say you want a revolution, well you know that you can count be out——In.”

  5. On this July 4 weekend, revolution again seems to be in the air. Even before the recent decision overturning Roe v. Wade, congressional Democrats like Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) warned the Supreme Court to reaffirm Roe or face a “revolution.”

    Americans ignorance of the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels comes at a perilous price. Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, Critical Race Theory, most of today’s Democrat talking points, Bernie Sanders, Alexandra Ocasio Cortes, Sen Lieawatha, cancel culture, defund the police, ProAbortionists tactics, etc, all rooted in the violence espoused by Marx and Engels.

    …..there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.

    – Karl Marx
    The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna
    Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 136

    The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.

    – Friedrich Engels
    The Magyar Struggle
    Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 194

  6. July 4, 1776: The day the Thirteen Colonies officially endorsed an Insurrection against the government of Great Britain.

    Happy Insurrection Day!

  7. Actually, if you listen closely to the single version, on the Beatles ‘Revolution’, Lennon adds the word “IN” after they sing you can count me out..He explained later in an interview his thoughts…” John explains this lyric in a 1971 interview: “There were two versions of that song, but the underground left only picked up on the one that said ‘count me out.’ The original version, which ends up on the LP, said ‘count me in’ too; I put in both because I wasn’t sure. I didn’t want to get killed.”

    1. I guess even back in the sixties Lennon was aware of the Left’s predisposition to Cancel Culture.

  8. The nation was never intended to be governed by a simple majority; it was to maintain consistency of principles and of law.

    Our hole system of laws is not supposed to swing on a dime just because one group won an election. And right now, the rage mob of Democrats says they want to change our nation’s laws to fit their agenda. Is that all they want to change? They also complain about “voting rights,” and have come up with their half-baked solutions to the problem. Is that the next thing they are going to want to change? And all this because they want to be governed without guiderails.

    I would challenge any of these Democrats to point out one thing to me. How many times does the word, “democracy,” or any of its permutations, appear in the Constitution?

    Also, I hear so many Democrats complain about not getting their way with different parts of the government, so they immediately say that we need to change those systems for the temporary political benefit they can extract from their preferred system. Well, there are some things I’d like to change about the system, too. But I have to ask: If you have so many grievances about the system the way it is, then instead of trying to change it, why not move to another piece of land on this planet that matches your political beliefs more than this one? You are always cheering for those migrants moving into the United States; why not act just like them and move out? Or is it that you just want the United States destroyed under your vision of politics, so that what stood as the ideals of America for so long just vanish from the face of the earth?

    A recent national survey was conducted by the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics; the partial results show that majorities of both major political parties feel the other party are bullies that just want to impose their political beliefs on those who disagree. Is that the type of change we really want?

  9. We are always in a civil revolution. However, I am optimistic that we will not need it to become a war. We will always have an overwhelming majority of people that will oppose tyranny. We have too much history that proves how this country will bend but not break. We got this.

    May God continue to bless the United States of America!

    1. I hope you are correct. I worry with the rise of technology and those in power how it’s abused. The cancerous growth of govt that feels empowered to do whatever it wants behind the scenes and evermore out in plain sight. The apparatchiks within the morass of the govt bureaucracy and it’s unionized impossible to fire horde are killing America like a dog loaded with ticks and parasites that can not be removed. The huge subverting of voting in this country with electronic tainted means , mail in voting and near no real VOTER ID coupled with massive illegal aliens allowed and encouraged to come across the unenforced border is a nightmare that will again be used against America.

      1. We’re bending, perhaps more than ever, but SCOTUS stiffened when we needed it most. If the midterms are secure, then we’ll begin to unwind the anti-American sentiment that has plagued our country for far too long.

        1. You don’t get it, do you Olly? You don’t speak for “us” or “we”, meaning the majority of Americans. You 30 percenters aren’t going to make rules that the rest of us disagree with and are forced to live with. As a result of outright cheating, someone manifestly unqualified managed to get into the White House, despite losing the popular vote. As a result of bad luck, openings on the SCOTUS happened, and 3 extreme right wingers got nominated, with their primary qualification being a willingness to ignore stare decisis and the Individual rights of freedom and liberty granted by the Constitution. Each of them lied to get onto the high court. When asked very specifically about their views on Roe v. Wade, each of them said it was “established precedent”, and that they respect the concept of stare decisis, which is an outright lie. They never even hinted that they thought it was “egregiously wrong”, which is what they are now claiming. Alito was also nominated by someone who lost the popular vote. These 4 do NOT represent the views or values of the majority. “We”, meaning most Americans, do not “need” these losers to take away hard-won individual rights. You think that Americans enjoying freedoms like the right to choose whether to continue with an unwanted pregnancy, to choose whom to marry, for consenting adults to choose to engage in sex and the right to contraception without government interference is somehow a “plague” on “our” country? You are delusional. Most Americans do not accept your rules for how people like you think we should have to live. And, I wouldn’t be too sure about the midterms, either.

  10. It’s funny Turley is mentioning revolution and whatnot about liberals being angry over the recent events with the Supreme Court.

    Turley conveniently leaves out the fact that conservatives have been beating the revolution drum for years. Much more than liberals lately. Conservatives are always the ones going on about 2nd amendment rights and it’s importance in being able to revolt against the government because of Marxists, socialists, communists, groomers, pedophiles, activists judges, or whatever label of the day or week they decide to throw in to stoke their rage. You know, that rage that is often fed by Turley in his quest to complain about the “age of rage”. Turley can be hilariously transparent sometimes, it could be simple naïveté or deliberate ignorance.

    1. You are in denial. When have the Republicans ever ranted about stacking or abolishing SCOTUS ?. When have the Republicans ever staged violent protests in front of judges homes and been so derisive of such so publicly…NEVER. It’s the democratz and the leftwaffe apparatchiks therein that demand changing the constitution and the principles of our government to literally get their way or else. Sorry selvaz you cant have your cake and eat it too with so much hypocrisy you are indulging in.

      1. Republicans have been stacking the court for decades. Why would they protest in front of judges homes when they are getting everything they want. Instead they have bombed abortion clinics and killed doctors. Republicans stormed the Capitol and you call them tourists. Historically Democrats have done worse but you are totally blind as to what Republicans are currently doing. The Patriot Front marched down the streets of Boston yesterday, you know who they are. Sticking to the Court, it has always served to protect the interests of rich, white men, why would Republican object to them? Not that all Republicans are rich, white, men, they have just been brainwashed into voting their interests.

    2. Svelaz, Your post at 9:49 is nonsensical and lacks substance. You seem to be the thing you hate the most.

  11. “Now, with predictions of Democrats losing both houses, Biden is calling to end the legislative filibuster. It is akin to the Titanic’s captain spotting the iceberg and immediately ordering the lifeboats to be burned.”

    Both a brilliantly turned phrase and a judicious point, Professor!

    The question is what does “THE REVOLUTION” intend to do exactly? I guess the only answer is to force states that limit abortion to not prosecute transgressing those limits. How does that work exactly?

    It doesn’t, but tyrants gotta tirade.

    1. I overlooked the more obvious answer: the left wants to replace the Constitution with their own moral prejudices. How foolish of me not to see it.

    2. Those “predictions” were from polls taken BEFORE the SCOTUS gutted Roe v. Wade and specifically told us other freedoms were on the chopping block.

  12. Should Russian forces leave all of Ukraine, including Crimea, as a goodwill gesture?

    1. Those evil russkis would have never been in Ukraine had Trump still been Pres. Under gummi puppet joey his weak sauce was noted and acted upon by pooty poot. So anything you propose as you do is non sequitur and flies in the face of reality. A weak potus and the alligators in the real world will then do there thing. China is next to take a bite of the apple…and joe biden did that , and in fact green lighted it due to his corruption and weakness.

  13. The Left seeks a Revolution they won’t win. The numbers are against them. They didn’t get the country disarmed and they never will. ATF recently stated 700 million guns in circulation. Note to the Left: ownership is not marksmanship or tactics. You never served in the military you don’t have those skill sets.

    The Left has stirred the pot of anger and hate. Careful what you wish for!

  14. With rare exceptions, since FDR, the left has used the court to push an agenda they could not get through congress or state legislatures. Now with the court firmly conservative they will have to legislate. Maybe that will lead to some moderation in the long run. One could only hope. I think that is the main part of their rage. They also see the first signs of unraveling of their decades long lock on education.
    FDR had firm control of the House and Senate from 1932-1938 and instituted much of what we now see as the administrative state. But apparently that was not enough and so he went after many conservatives in his own party in 1938 since they were not pure and he wanted to do even more. He suffered a major defeat with the republicans gaining approximately 80 seats in 1938 (but were still in the minority) and they gained enough senate seats to form a coalition with democratic conservatives and he never passed another new deal piece of legislation. 1936 was his high water mark and he lost more and more popular votes in in the presidential years of 1940 and 1944. It is alleged that he only ran in 1944 because every other democrat would have lost to Dewey.
    Over-reach and the public will punish you especially if you add incompetence on top of everything else. If the democrats get plastered in 2022 as I hope, then maybe they will start to act like a normal party, reasses and rebrand look at what works and what does not. Again if they are a real party and not just a rage machine.
    They would not get a revolution, they would get a civil war. Very ugly and very fast.

    1. @GEB

      That’s my hope too – as MOST of us do not care to see bullets flying, either. Though it will take them a very long time to regain credibility, it isn’t too late for dems to pull the plug on and disavow the radicalism and try to course correct. I guess time will tell. The COVID debacle alone is enough for many of us to have this mentality going forward, and that is a fraction of the fodder available from the past five or six years. Nancy has no idea how many people she lost for good when she tore up that speech.

      1. GEB and James,
        Two polls out this week stood out to me. 1) 1 million Dems switched to GOP or Independents. 600,000 switched from GOP to Dem.
        2) 84% of GOP find the Jan6 hearings biased. 58% of Independents find the Jan6 hearings biased.

        A study out a few months ago showed an increase in home schooling.

        Since the 2020 Summer of Love, fiery but mostly peaceful protests, first time buyers of firearms (mostly handguns) were 40% minorities to include women.

        There may be a revolution happening, just not the one we think of.

  15. That sound you hear is the sound of Democrats shooting themselves in both feet.

  16. They cry “Revolution” they better be careful they don’t get what they cry for. They are a minority who keeps poking the Bear, sooner or later their going to wake that Bear and then they’ll cry foul. Once waken all hell is going to break loose and their cowardice will be on full display. That Bear has kept this nation free and destroyed those who wish to enslave around the world.

    Enjoy and celebrate this great day of Independence, those who have kept us Free and the Constitution. God Bless all law abiding Americans.

  17. Some of us? No, try MOST of us. The loudest voices against the SCOTUS are coming either from the power hungry or those too young and privileged to understand what real lawlessness with zero protection looks like. We are getting a sneak preview of what society would look like if the AOCs were in charge. It’s up to us to take heed where their parents and our institutions failed so miserably. As for the power hungry, including the likes of Soros, to them the law is a cudgel that is of no use if they aren’t the ones wielding it. It’s kinda that simple, though the nuance is important, too.

    1. No, James. You ReTrumplicans are in the 30%. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not agree. The only ones who are “power hungry” are ReTrumplicans: they won’t admit that your hero lost fair and square because it keeps the suckers and Evangelicals running to the polls to “save unborn babies”. How noble. They found a way to get 3 radicals on the SCOTUS whose main qualification was the refusal to abide by stare decisis and the rights of freedom and liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. The majority of “us” are mad as hell and we’re not going to take it any more.

  18. democrats are fighting a civil war…AGAIN. Republicans and Independents aren’t! And that is the problem
    DC is already lost!

  19. In reality, the court was never meant to be that. It was meant to be the Constitution’s court

    The left is not bright. But then, their agenda is lothed by the majority. The only way to advance their agenda is through the federal courts. Having locked up control of the education of the nation for 3 generations, Law schools have turned out lefttist, in huge numbers. The learned how to twist the language to allow all sorts of rationalizations.

    The left hates the notion of a self governing populace.

    1. The Right only ask that the Constitution be interpreted as written. Our Revolution is only a continuation of the Glorious Revolution of 1776.

      1. Well, since the Constitution doesn’t say the government can’t tap your phone, put electronic listening devices in your house, your car or your place of business, or monitor your computer, it must be OK. These things weren’t invented or even imagined back when the Constitution was written, but the right of privacy in your “person” and the right of liberty are included. These rights include the decision whether to continue with an unwated pregnancy prior to the age of fetal viability, the right of consenting adults to engage in sexual acts of their choosing, the right of contraception, and the right to love and marry whom you choose, even if they are of the same sex.

        1. Natacha, you left out “The right to sexualize children.”

    2. The majority of America did NOT want Roe overturned. According to your definition, that makes most Americans “The Left”. You claim that the not bright “left” “is lothed [sic} loathed by the majority.” You have it wrong. Your kind represents only 30% of the population. And, why would you “loathe” people with whom you disagree? Because you are disciples to alt-right media and believe every lie they tell you. All day long they preach about the “evil Left”. Guess what? Non alt-right media doesn’t do this. NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC–none of them preach to you about the lies put out every day by Fox, OAN, NewsMax, InfoWars or Breitbart or tries to teach you to hate the devotees to these sources of propaganda. What does that tell you about yourself and your gullibility? And, for the record, we don’t “loathe” you or your kind. I feel sorry for you.

Comments are closed.