Below is my column in Fox.com on the recent decision of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro to join the ranks of Democrats calling for packing the Supreme Court. It is a disappointing moment for many of us who hoped that Shapiro could offer a moderate voice in the upcoming elections, resisting the rise of socialists and communists in his party. Instead, he proved to be just another politician thinking of the next election rather than the next generation.
Here is the column:
Gov. Josh Shapiro (D. Pa.) has finally reached his Terry Malloy moment. In the classic movie, On the Waterfront, the character tells his brother of losing it all; his shot to be a champion and a person of respect: “You don’t understand! I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I could’ve been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let’s face it.”
Shapiro decided to deliver his defining moment on MS NOW’s “Morning Joe” when he abandoned all principle and decided to join other Democratic establishment leaders in offering up the Supreme Court to the radical left. Shapiro used the common coded reference to court packing, calling for “radical reform of the Court.” The only “radical” reform being seriously discussed is packing the institution with an immediate liberal majority to reverse a series of recent decisions and to greenlight an equally radical agenda for changes to our political system.
What is so disappointing is that Shapiro could have truly been a contender, an alternative to the cringing, accommodating politicians who are yielding to the demands of the mob. Figures from Kamala Harris to Pete Buttigieg have recently embraced the scheme to show their bona fides to a rising socialist and radical movement in the Democratic Party.
Shapiro could have been different. He could have offered the country moderation and pushed back on the radical elements of his party. Shapiro was reportedly rejected as a vice presidential candidate due to being Jewish and is a member of a party that is careening toward open anti-Semitism. He could have been that mature voice in his party cautioning restraint before destroying one of our core institutions.
Instead, he chose to just be another bum in American politics.
Shapiro told MS NOW:
“I think we need radical reform that’s actually going to ensure that the voices of the people are heard from, that the voices of the people are represented in the three branches of government. We don’t have that right now.”
The comment echoes the remarks of other court-packers like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who insisted the court was illegitimate for rendering decisions against “widely held public opinion.”
The Supreme Court was never designed to be the “voice of the people.” On the contrary, it was meant to be a countermajoritarian check on the people’s impulse. It is that body that is designed to stand against the majority to protect minority interests and to maintain a constitutional system meant to blunt popular impulse.
In my book, Rage and the Republic, I discuss how the Framers sought to avoid a direct democratic system, which had failed repeatedly in history. These systems (based on channeling public demands) became what Benjamin Rush called a “mobocracy.” The Supreme Court plays a vital part in preventing our Republic from destroying itself.
For years, professors and pundits have quietly urged a hostile takeover of the Court to remove the barrier to fundamentally changing our system. Now, on the 250th anniversary of our Republic, they are close to getting their way.
Years ago, Harvard professor Michael Klarman laid out a radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.” However, he warned that “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described.” Therefore, the court must be packed in advance to allow these changes to occur.
Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder has put packing the Supreme Court front and center, explaining, “[We’re] talking about the acquisition and the use of power if there is a Democratic trifecta in 2028.”
James Carville declared, “If the Democrats win the presidency and both houses of Congress, I think on day one, they should expand the Supreme Court to 13. F— it. Eat our dust. Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it.”
Now Shapiro has joined these ignoble ranks.
Shapiro and others are demanding the radical reforms despite the current Court repeatedly ruling against the Trump Administration, including most recently on birthright citizenship. Without acknowledging that the decision again showed the Court’s independence, Shapiro griped, “this case should have taken a nanosecond to decide and it should have been nine nothing.”
What does that mean? Should the courts not have heard arguments, or should the Supreme Court have issued an immediate ruling from the bench during oral arguments?
Nevertheless, that is enough for Shapiro to toss the Court to the mob. It is transparent and frankly pathetic.
Shapiro added that too much power was being given to the Executive Branch. This is a court that just ruled against the President on issues from citizenship to tariffs. It has drawn sharp rebukes from President Trump for curtailing his powers.
Now Shapiro appears ready to repeat his controversial move against his neighbor and exercise a type of adverse possession against the Court. However, he lacks the courage (as do figures like House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries) to come out and call it court packing. They simply refer to “radical” changes.
It is part of conditioning voters to the type of structural changes contemplated by the left to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.” Most voters still oppose court packing. You have to wait until voters are angry enough to take a hammer to a system that remains the oldest, most stable democracy in history.
The Court could well fall in the coming years to this mad frenzy, but it will be preceded by the fall of figures like Josh Shapiro. He and his establishment colleagues are deluding themselves into believing that they will be spared in this mobocracy that they are making.
Refusing to have his state participate in the 250th celebration on the Mall and offering up the Supreme Court will not appease an increasingly violent and anti-Semitic far-left movement.
Despite his own pandering to the mob, the socialists recently chanted “you’re next” when they saw Jeffries’ image on a screen at a New York victory party.
Yesterday’s armchair revolutionaries like Josh Shapiro will soon be treated as today’s reactionaries by the very mob that they are trying to enlist. What will be left is a lament of what Shapiro could have been at this moment in our history. As Terry Malloy said, he “coulda had class. [He] coulda been a contender. [He] could’ve been somebody.”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Here is a clever gambit. If Republicans hold onto the House, propose an expansion of the SCt to 15 members, thusopening up six vacancies. Line up judicial candidates who are in their ’30s. As a unit, Demo’s will fulminate against the sacrilege. Riots will be started. We can drop the idea, and use their words against them in the future.
Hasn’t read George Santayana…
*. Teach your children there really are things worse than death. 😏
Living under a Trump administration for instance
It’s been pretty damn good for me and my family, you must be one of the USAID people.
You’ve won. Start crowing.
Between Josh Shapiro and Professor Turley, only of them has advocated explicitly for packing the court.
Shame on Turley for misleading his readers into thinking the answer is the former rather than the latter.
I think Professor Turley’s position is being overstated. When did he suggest packing the court? The Supreme Court consists of nine justices, and timing has played a critical role in nominations. If you listen to oral arguments on Oyez ( https://www.oyez.org/cases/2025 ) , it becomes clear that, unless you have legal training, it is difficult to follow the depth of discussion around precedent and constitutional law. Too often the press is not accurate in their narative of what transpired in the court.
I never expected Roe v. Wade to be overturned, especially given how complex the case is. The original decision was issued by a Court with six Republican-appointed justices and three Democratic-appointed justices, and the ruling included one each Republican and Democratic dissenters. Justice Ginsburg later criticized Roe as flawed, calling it “bad law,” and others have described it as judicial activism. The ruling leaned heavily on a right to privacy between a doctor and patient, rather than more firmly grounding it in a woman’s bodily autonomy—an approach I would have preferred. In the end, neither perspective fully prevailed, which is part of how democracy works. I did not get my way. You might find it interesting to research that abortions have increased since Roe V Wade was ofverturned.
I have disagreed with many policies under Presidents Obama and Biden. Still, they were my presidents because I am an American citizen.
I remain amazed at the hipocracy among democrates that Pres. Clinton remained after his dallience with Monica Lewinski, certainly he was guilty of breaking the public trust. No college president would have lasted a moment. Now fast forward to Graham Platner. Then go back to the hearing for Kavanaugh. “Me too” for you and not for me.
We all need to do our best not to be hypocritical. Not an easy task and made more difficult when emotions or self-serving information is used to form opinions. Two NY Attorneys ran for office on the platform of get Trump, then are surprised that Trump then criticize Trump for weaponizing the judiciary. The only correct answer is both sides are wrong.
*. Was Roe v Wade a commerce case?
“. . . toss the Court to the mob.” “They simply refer to ‘radical’ changes.” (JT)
Behold today’s democrats:
Topple the American system. Transform it into an absolute democracy — with D politicians as the Voice of the people. Then deceive the public about their power grab.
There is no leader in the Democratic establishment to stand against the takeover of the party against the loudest voices in the room which unsurprisingly is the socialists. The Dems dropped reasoned debate and bi-partisan compromise in their pursuit of unilateral, unrestrained power. They turned to identity politics to stoke grievance creating factions within the body politic. They have been the party of the left so it is only natural that they would attract leftist radicals to their party. Now in the vacuum of leadership created by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer and many others the party is relying on a faction that seeks to destroy this capitalist democratic republic which showed the world that security and prosperity could coincide with individual freedom. When they openly promote to end the system of checks and balances by packing SCOTUS ending the protections to individual freedom against an overbearing government it is only reasonable that true totalitarians will take them up on their offer. The choice is still up to the people. We can vote to retain our system that has improved the lot of all mankind for the last 250 years or we can let the barbarians through the gate while we slept. We must stand against this threat ourselves. No one else will do it for us.
Donald J. Trump boasted on Monday that his funeral will draw a “much bigger crowd” than that of the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
“The so-called Ayatollah, who was a loser and a terrible person, got a pathetic turnout for his funeral over the weekend,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “My funeral will draw MILLIONS!”
Claiming that “nobody cares” about Khamenei’s funeral, Trump said he expects the turnout at his funeral to set records, noting, “Every day, people say to me, ‘Sir, I can’t wait for that day to come.’”
Over the weekend, Trump’s July 4 festivities in the nation’s capital drew billions of algae.
The turnout will rival Taylor Swift’s wedding.
The sounds of champagne corks popping will be deafening!
There are many who will want to anoint Trump’s grave with champagne, but only after they’ve run it through their kidneys.
Many will want to leave their own expression of gratitude on his grave.
My dog, for one.
Mine too!
Anon @ 09:40
You coulda had class. You coulda been a contender. I could’ve been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what you are, let’s face it.
I’m sure Taylor will attend, a glass of bubbly in hand
Do you mean Taylor or Melania?
Bet it’ll be both of them!
And don’t forget E. Jean Carroll–she’ll be at that party in the streets!
How do you count algae?
It’s simple. Shapiro (aside from a small amount of justifiable paranoia about his Jewish roots) does not want to be the victim of the Jacobin revolution in the dem party. He does not desire to be one of the first at the guillotine.
Agreeing to packing the court? If Shapiro opened a Dabke dance studio this crew won’t support him. Just look at their lineup, does he really think he fits in?
Turley writes that on the 250th anniversary of our country “professors and pundits are close to getting their way” regarding the so-called “packing” of the Supreme Court. How? How are they close? I’m asking legitimately. Republicans control both houses and the executive branch and have a 6-3 sway of the Court. How are “professors and pundits” close?
I suspect he is referring to the growing acceptance of the idea within the Democrat party and their (nutty)voters. The legislative hurdles remain but the idea has taken hold.
Democrats still control the Senate as far as I can tell. Else the SAVE act would havd sailed through.
Professor Turley frequntly refers to the Democratic Party or to Democratic politicians. The proper appelation is “Democrat” brcause they are certainly not “Democratic.” Also, we shouldn’t forget that Shapiro tried to grab his neighbor’s property by adverse possession and under the ciorcumstances in that situation, he knew this was not proper or even legal. Another indication that he iswas no better than the other DEMOCRATS – tjat ia aimply MARXISTS.
Yes. Correct. Thank you for pointing out this discrepancy. Never say “Democratic.” They are anything but.
I think we are looking at it from the wrong perspective.
It is not that Shapiro has gone radical and joined the mob. Well, he has but not for the reason mentioned.
As an establishment Democrat, perhaps he is seeing the way the movement of the Democrat party is going: The DSA. In order to stay relevant in the way the party is going, he is pandering to the DSA mob. The DSA wins in NYC and CO, likely for the mayor of DC, the chants of “You’re next!” the establishment needs the young vote and that means the DSA. All the while, the DSA takes the establishment out at the same time.
James Carville recently said he wanted no part of the DSA as they were, well, socialists and had nothing in common with the [traditional] Democrat party. A split like that would divide the party and likely the vote giving the Republicans a significant edge.
I think we need to wait and see what other establishment Democrats say and do. Could be an indication of the establishment trying to control the mob they created.
Upstate, would you actually stake your life on establishment Democrats reining this in, or is that more hope than bet?
I would not bet they reign this in – but whether they do or do not – the democratic party fractures.
While there are lots of places that the far left can win offices – they can not win a majority in the house or senate or even close, and the more they win the less appealing democrats become in places they can not win.
All parties have to try to build a coalition over 51% of voters. Both have to hold onto their flanks while not alienating the center.
The more radical the extreme flank becomes the hader it is to win elections outside of extreme districts.
OLLY,
When AOC first got elected, I think the establishment just saw it as a one off. She was not to be taken seriously. She is considered to be one of the most useless members of Congress. She may bring in money for the party though, her only contribution.
Then Mamdani happened.
And then Mamdani backed candidates took out establishment candidates.
The one in CO, took out a 15 term, progressive, Democrat.
This is no longer a “one off.”
And no, I do not think the establishment can control this monster they created. They may try, but after watching the “You’re next!” video, I think the days of the establishment are numbered. They can try to pander to the monster, while they try to cling to control as it slips away.
They can try to hold out as long as possible to keep the DSA vote, or they split and that will give the Republicans a real advantage.
The DSA has even said they are using establishment party resources to get DSA candidates elected and will continue to do so until they can campaign independently of the establishment.
Reeling Democratic establishment accuses socialists of exploiting ballot access
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/reeling-democratic-establishment-suggests-policing-primaries-pushing-back?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
Upstate, sounds like that answers the question itself. A one term stunt is optimism. A fifteen term incumbent getting taken out and the DSA openly saying they’re using establishment resources like a parasite until they don’t need the host anymore, that’s not a monster the establishment controls. That’s a monster feeding on its host while the host keeps hoping it’ll stop.
You just talked yourself out of the bet. 😉
“That’s a monster feeding on its host while the host keeps hoping it’ll stop.”
At this point I am very much rooting for the parasite.
“When AOC first got elected, I think the establishment just saw it as a one off. She was not to be taken seriously. She is considered to be one of the most useless members of Congress. She may bring in money for the party though, her only contribution.”
It is plain that J. D. Vance is salivating over the prospect of running against her for POTUS in 2028:
Vance says AOC has ‘got to be’ Dem candidate in 2028, she fires back with ‘I hope he is’ GOP pick
https://nypost.com/2026/07/01/us-news/jd-vance-says-aoc-has-got-to-be-dem-candidate-in-2028-she-fires-back-with-i-hope-he-is-gop-pick/
“WASHINGTON — Vice President JD Vance predicted Tuesday that Bronx and Queens Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2028, dismissing some of the other rumored contenders as overrated.
“I think it’s got to be AOC. I know that’s probably conventional wisdom,” Vance told “The Michael Knowles Show” in an interview promoting his new book “Communion.””
If the Democrats win the House, it will likely be with a very small majority. To pass anything they will need the support of at least seven DSA members as well as other extreme progressives. These members likely will not compromise, since the basis of their election is radical change. Moreover, there are now few if any “moderate” Democrats who will resist.
So the Republicans need to explain this reality whenever they are running against a “moderate” Democrat. A vote for any Democrat is effectively a vote for the DSA, no matter what they say.
Even Carville grasps that the louder the extreme voices in the democrat party are the less chance Democrats have of winning a majority.
While the “extremes” in the GOP are not as offensive as those on the left – both parties have this problem
But right now it is democrats that risk alienating the center
The core issue is that this is a major fault line in the democratic party.
There is almost nowhere int he country that a democrat can get elected without the support of the radical left – even if those are NOT the majority of voters or even the majority of democrats, They DO sit out elections. Further they are the worker bees of the democratic party.
Without them – democrats fall short of winning majorities.
In the past candidates have managed the radical left by wink and nod promising them things and then failing to deliver. But more and more this wing of the democratic party is demanding DELIVERY or they do not show up.
The Tea party did this to the GOP almost 2 decades ago – it is very effective -0 but the Tea Party was fundimentally a shift TOWARDS the center – Tea Party positions did not alienate centrists. and independents. The far left wing of the democratic party -= alienates even centrist democrats.
Increasingly democrats can not win nationally with the far left and they can not win without them.
“The core issue is that this is a major fault line in the democratic party.”
Divide and conquer is so much easier a strategy when your enemy implements it voluntarily 🙂
The Lefties threaten to pack the court and they don’t even hold the House, the Senate, or the Presidency. The Republicans call the Lefties names, threaten to pack the court first while holding three of three institutions and yet we know they will do absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, we know that if the Lefties win the trifecta in 2028 they will immediately make good on every single threat from taxes, the court, the 2nd amendment, energy, just name it.
Something is very, very wrong here. And stinky.
Like a high school girl trying to fit in, and she never does—he won’t either. They won’t like him any more now than they did.
How long should we wait for the Turley article about Trump musing about wanting to pack the Court?
Until this is a major plank in the republican platform and not the result of tit for tat responses to Democrat stupidity.
This is a specific article about Josh Shapiro, not an article about the “Democratic platform.”
(And Shapiro hasn’t actually advocated for this specific position.)
The good professor is pointing out how Shapiro has said out loud, of his support of radical change in the court.
That would be a Democrat platform plank.
What are you talking about?
Is this an article about Democrats writ large or Shapiro, specifically?
“[The Supreme Court was never designed to be the “voice of the people.” On the contrary, it was meant to be a countermajoritarian check on the people’s impulse.]” That doesn’t fly very well against “promote the general Welfare” of the Preamble and to “provide…for the…general Welfare” of Article 1, Section 8. Oh well, what can one expect of a Professor of Law who too-typically thinks the Declaration of Independence, not the “Constitution for the United States of America,” is the founding document and celebrates America’s 250th anniversary nearly twelve years early? And, what can one expect of an equally deluded inappropriate opposition in an artificially created two party system in an action-reaction, cause and effect and stimulus-response universe? Again, in my politically independent senior lay constitutionalist opinion, there is only a constitutional agenda and both major political parties have been deliberately ignoring, misinterpreting, violating and usurping it all of my life, in favor of the insanely greedy rich. Contrary to official and popular opinion Constitutional America no longer exists and now it’s a matter of restoring it. Can we depend on Professor Turley and President Trump to do that; I think “NOT!” Charles G. Shaver/CGS
You should have taken Mark Twain’s advice, because you are obviously a fool.
The general welfare clause is NOT a grant of power. None of the preamble is.
Well, pardon me but if you are right then who does “We the People of the United States…” represent and what does “…this Constitution for the United States of America.” stand for?
If Republicans retain control of the House and Senate after the November midterm elections, they should propose adding four additional Justices to the Supreme Court so that Trump could nominate an additional four conservatives if only to make Democrats in the House and Senate go on record as being against “court packing”.
Worth walking this out to where it naturally leads. We built a system with checks and balances precisely because no single branch should have the final, unanswerable word. But the judicial branch was supposed to be the last honest referee, the place a citizen with a real natural rights argument could go when the other branches failed him.
Once that branch gets captured by something other than what it was built for, once every legitimate appeal just gets overruled regardless of the merits, you’re not looking at a weak check anymore. You’re looking at no check at all.
That is exactly what the founding generation ran into. They didn’t start with independence. They petitioned, appealed, worked every legitimate channel available to them, right up through the Olive Branch Petition. The King didn’t argue back. He just refused to hear it and declared them in rebellion instead.
History already ran this experiment once. A well-formed people who exhaust good faith appeal and get told no every time eventually stop believing the appeal process itself is legitimate. That’s not radicalism. That’s the predictable result of being right and still losing, over and over, to a system that stopped listening.
We have had left leaning Supreme courts in the past – they are on NET harmful and destructive – particularly economically. But they do not result in the collapse of the nation.
I doubt left wing nuts will succeed in “packing the court” – but even if they do – they are unlikely to get what they want. Those even on the left that make it to the supreme court – ad not bomb throwing anarchists. They may not be persuaded by the arguments of their peers on the right – but they are persuaded by failure.
A left supreme court would be bad for the country – it would correct slowly and some of the damage might be permanent – but the US would survive – our standard of living would just rise more slowly.
John, we’ve had bad courts before, no argument there. Left leaning benches, right leaning benches, rulings that set us back economically for a decade. But every single one of those courts still had to answer to the Constitution as the client, like the other commenter said. That’s the whole point. Even a court you disagreed with had to make an argument, had to justify the ruling against the text, and that argument could be challenged, appealed, eventually corrected by a future court or a future case. That’s self correction working the way it’s supposed to.
Thirteen seats with seven locked in isn’t a bad court in that sense anymore. It’s a court where the argument stops mattering entirely. You could walk in with the tightest natural rights case ever written and it wouldn’t matter, because you’re not persuading judges anymore, you’re just getting a vote counted. That’s the difference between Judge Haller ruling against you because your argument didn’t hold up, and my cousin Vinny’s opposing counsel getting overruled no matter what he says because the fix is already in before the hearing starts. One of those is a legal system. The other one’s theater with robes on.
You’re hoping failure eventually persuades them the way it always has before. I get the hope, but hope’s not a structure. Every past correction depended on the Constitution still being the client. Pack the court and there is no client anymore, just outcomes. That’s not a worse court. That’s a different kind of thing wearing a court’s clothes.
I do not “hope for failure” – it is just how we learn. And if we do not learn the first time – we fail again and get another opportunity to learn.
Many of us here CONSTANTLY tell those ont he left – Socialism does not work – not anywhere not anytime ever.
Their not listening – they are ignorant of history or think without any rationalk reason “this time will be diferent”
It likely will – because of past experiences with socialism – it is likely that failure will occur more quickly and mostly it will be less damaging.
It is always best to avoid failure entirely – but that is not possible.
Even in the free market – Failure is the NORM – not the exception – that is creative destruction.
The problem is not failure – it is that the few institutions we do not want to fail ever are govenrment and the courts.
@John
Respectfully – you seem to be under the impression there would still be a semblance of law in your scenario, and that is simply not the case.
You are so astute that frankly, this particular comment of yours is a bit surprising. There would be no recourse of any kind. It would be game over. Emergency covid powers that were granted to governors would appear quaint. It would be a cementing of a complete totalitarian takeover of our system with no way out. A great many blue voters are so asleep or blinded by TDS they’ll just hand over the keys to the kingdom in their blindness and/or ignorance.
Our country would certainly not survive, and there would be *no* quality of life. You have said you are a libertarian; that would no longer be possible or permitted in the hellscape.
James,
Based off their words and actions, I have to agree with you about the lawless part.
Just read about how another one of Biden’s illegals, with a non-domicile CDL, killed a PA state patrol officer.
@Upstate
Yup. It’s really whistling in the dark for some. I admire and share their fortitude, but that only goes so far. If heaven forbid we entered into an armed conflict, and we were staring down the face of a true coup, it would be trivial for the globalists to enlist the help of China et. al. I do not think they would hesitate, at this point.
“Respectfully – you seem to be under the impression there would still be a semblance of law in your scenario, and that is simply not the case.”
I am libertarian – we are already really far from anything I would recognize as the rule of law.
Failure is an important part of how we learn. Obviously it is preferable to avoid failure, and ONE of the many arguments for small govenrment is the one place we do NOT want failure is govenrment.
But it takes an enormous amount of failure to take out an affluent society.
Just as I have little interest in the Malthusian idiocy of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, Or peak oil or any of the other Malthusian idiocies of the left.
I am similarly not interested in the delusion that the US can easily become the USSR or CCP or Cuba or any other socialist failure.
That does not mean not fighting these lunatic left wing nuts.
Peak Woke was 2020 – I firmly believe that – we are watching the death throes of an ideology – not its resurgence.
Wounded animals can be dangerous – we should not forget that.
I fight the idiots on the left here all the time.
Pleas e – which of these people are truly capable of accomplishing anything.
Mamdani will succeed in Governing NYC if and only if his far left political advocacy remains rhetorical, and real.
My hope is that he actually tries to accomplish what he says he will – Better to seen an open example of catastrophic failure in NYC – which has been failing for a long time, Than to conduct the same experiments nationally.
In Fascism….YOUR PARTY is the ruler. Every Democrat Goosesteps to their DEEP STATE Star Chamber.
There are NO GOOD Democrats…stop wishing for one! That is like wishing for a GOOD Nazis…heck at least some Nazis tried to stop Hilter and they actually loved their country.
NO Democrat Loves America….not one!
No surprise here. Shapiro is only the most recent example of how an essential lack of moral character and integrity (a nearly universal failing of politicians as a class, and especially true of current Democrat examples) will always ultimately prevail.