Below is my column in The Hill on the latest spin from the left to convince Americans to abandon core constitutional institutions and values as part of a radical agenda in the upcoming elections. Those who defend our traditions, on the 250th anniversary of our Republic, are now being accused of being “nostalgic” rather than progressive. It is a nostalgia that will take on a truly tragic element if professors, pundits and politicians are successful in this effort.
Here is the column:
It appears that the Madisonian democracy has joined shackets and combat boots as embarrassingly outdated for many on the left. In calling for radical changes to our constitutional system, leading Democrats are now calling the lingering loyalty to our traditions as mere “nostalgia.” To be nostalgic in today’s parlance is to be a dupe of the oligarchs and an enemy to reform.
“Nostalgia” has become the new coded term for reactionaries among Democratic figures, who are trying to convince Americans to accept radical changes to our republic after 250 years.
Kamala Harris recently insisted that opposition to ideas like packing the Supreme Court is mere “nostalgia” for a system that is no longer working. “I would caution us against talking about rebuilding with any sense of nostalgia about how things work, because even before, they weren’t working so well for a lot of folks,” she said. That “nostalgia,” according to Harris, is preventing us from doing things like packing the Supreme Court with an instant liberal majority.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) last week also declared that “nostalgia is not working” and, while refusing to embrace socialism, added that “capitalism as we know it doesn’t work.”
Morris Katz, a political strategist for Zohran Mamdani, spoke to CNN’s Dana Bash about looking beyond the label of democratic socialism and instead simply to accept that “our government does not work.” They are joining socialists who have long promised revolutionary changes without “introspection, nostalgia or regret.”
For the Democratic Socialist of America organization, nostalgia stands in the way of getting rid of the Senate, presidency, and the Supreme Court to fundamentally change the republic.
The effort is to condition Americans to adopt radical changes to our core institutions that professors and pundits say will guarantee Democrats never lose power again.
That is not an easy task for a people who have benefited from the oldest and most prosperous democracy for 250 years. They have to be very angry or very afraid to take such a radical course.
The Soviets understood that about the U.S. After Yuri Bezmenov, a KGB agent working in the media, defected in 1970, he revealed the four stages by which the Soviets hoped to bring about revolutionary change in the U.S. It began with undermining our institutions and values, with the help of journalists and academics.
With establishment figures lining up behind radical changes, including packing the Supreme Court, the public is hearing a constant drumbeat of how our system is broken.
Even Democratic judges are joining the chorus. Indeed, some appear to be auditioning for the slots promised by Democratic leaders to take over the court with a reliable liberal majority.
This week, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued an unhinged diatribe against the U.S. Supreme Court that abandoned any semblance of judicial restraint or decorum. It declared the majority as effectively racists, saying that “The Roberts Court sees only white.” It portrayed the court as a rogue institution that “overrides what Congress passed. It overrides what the people chose. All to serve its own ends.”
It is an opinion that would make an MS NOW host blush. But it follows a pattern on the left to get people to turn against our institutions and even against the Constitution itself.
Others are telling the public that they are being repressed by the Constitution, which must be scrapped. In a New York Times op-ed — “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed” — law professors Ryan Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for the nation to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”
In yet another New York Times editorial, Jennifer Szalai denounced “Constitution worship” and claimed that “Americans have long assumed that the Constitution could save us. A growing chorus now wonders whether we need to be saved from it.”
Berkeley Dean Erwin Chemerinsky insists that it is time to trash the Constitution in favor of “radical changes.”
These voices are seeking to remove all of the moderating elements of our system —the safety features that have produced the world’s most successful and stable republic. They are the very constitutional elements protecting us from the tyranny of the majority, protecting us from ourselves.
Without those protections, we will unleash the self-destructive forces that have been tearing apart other democratic systems since Athens. It is our constitution that spared us from that fate. As James Madison observed, “Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.”
Of course, history has shown that such radical proposals ultimately produce not democracy, but what the Framers called mobocracy. If we let that happen, many Americans will indeed look back at the last 250 years with a tragic sense of nostalgia.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times bestselling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.“
“Democrats are cowardly, they’re cowardly,”
“Their party is being taken over now, by… every day I hear about a new, very radical…I can’t sit and just not notice stuff,’
“There’s some crazy stuff. When we’re cheering for the intifada, I’m out.”
“I mean, I know the talking point is that it’s not communism and socialism. Okay. I’ve read the quotes from the DSA platform, from their own mouths. Don’t tell me I’m not seeing what I am seeing! And DSA, again, they say things like, you know, take over of key industries, government. That’s communism.”
— Bill Maher, on ABC’s This Week
As it has been noted in the past, Musk, Maher, the good professor, they did not leave the party. The party left them.
Democrats, you need to wake up and see what and who has highjacked your party, kick them out and take your party back.
“No more to Trumpism. But no more to the Democrats who compromise, who conciliate, and who betray us. (Applause) No more to the fascist reactionaries, but no more to the Democrats who will collaborate and cooperate with the fascists, who will fund ICE, who will fund Israel, who will help poison the planet, who will stiff workers, and help bosses. We don’t need those Democrats anymore.”
“In fact, I know we have a message. We are coming. We are unbossed. We are unbound. And we will become undeniable.”
— Hasan Piker, July 19 2026
Democrats, that ^^ is the what and who has highjacked your party. Wake up!
We need the same inculcated fear if islamist that was manifest into us about the “red scare” back in the post WWII era when we finally realized the unrelenting conquest upon which the communists were undertaking. We should see just as much peril to free western culture in the pernicious and savage horde of islamists traversing our globe in search of conquest.
I find it quite ironic that while many on the left decry Trump as a (or wanting to be a) fascist dictator, they don’t recognize that it is the constitution with its intentional dispersal and balance of power (federal v state and within the federal) that is the, dare I say it, insurmountable barrier that prevents this scenario from becoming a reality. And yet here they are baying like hounds treeing a racoon to rip apart the very legal structure that has endured and protected us for so long and under even more challenging times. Doesn’t anyone on the left stop and question their own logic?
“Doesn’t anyone on the left stop and question their own logic?” In a word, Arnold, “no”. They don’t see the need for logic when hypocrisy and feelings meet all of their needs.
The Democrats also dismiss freedom and individual rights as ‘nostalgia’.
Those commies are always trying to manipulate people by corrupting the meanings of words and symbols
Dear Mr. Turley, GEB and James are spot on. However, there is hope, even in cities like Chicago. There the “Chicago Flips Red” folks have been gaining momentum and strength. It is hard to find out about them through the mainstream media, but they are out there doing a great work in getting their message out. My guess is that if we were to stop giving the DSA a platform, they would fade into the distance.
Anon, Chicago has grabbed money and land and can now say no to socialism. The dems were just using suckers.
Looking back at how things worked in the past is only useful if it can be applied to present and future decisions.
Take women’s rights for example. Women in the US (or Japan, France, South Korea, etc) are never going to go back to the restricted household roles whose enforcement was rigid (and only relaxed during wartime).
That means we have to face up to the fertility crisis (ROK down to 0.75 births / lifetime) with new, creative thinking.
Women in the 1800s were married mothers by age 22. Now it’s the mid 30s. Smart conservatives are asking how young women’s life paths ought to unfold in a future US that has a stable replenishment of families and newborns (not dependent on immigration) — while at the same time offering women contributory roles outside the home.
The answers are not going to magically fallout of the sky. Nostalgia is pure escapism. The left doesn’t have solutions.
Conservatives, it’s time to stop reacting to the left defensively, put our brains in gear, and deal with the gathering cultural rework thrust upon us by circumstance.
I agree with you that creative solutions are needed. Happily, the history of the United States is that it almost always comes up with those types of solutions. The creative and optimistic approach to life is one aspect of America that some Europeans discovered as they came here for the world cup (and vlogged about it).
In prior centuries where women were married mothers by 22, they also ran economically productive activities out of their homes, oftentimes together with their husbands and children. This made being a “stay at home mother” not the type of prison portrayed by 1960s feminists – who lived in a time when husbands were going to the office for work and the family home was no longer an economic engine. So, can that be applied to today as a means of incentivizing earlier family formation?
Also, creative solutions are needed to get people into homes they own in their 20s or early 30s, which also incentivizes family formation and the birth of babies (which is sorely needed if the retirees want to be supported in old age). I have some ideas on that which can be for a future comment.
Trump’s investment accounts for babies is exactly this type of brilliant, moderate-conservative, pragmatic thinking (and action). If 18-year-olds enter adulthood owning $500K of equity, it will make all the difference in being able to marry their first love and nest-build.
We need corporate biz culture to get solidly behind family formation and childbirth/childrearing as part of the corporate mission — corporate tax incentives would make sense. Things like parental leave, and on-site daycare, after-school activities — we have to make companies share responsibility for producing the next generation. Right now, they are all too willing to give executive positions to committed singles and divorcees who don’t have a complicated work-life balance to juggle.
Democrat/Progressives have understanding of “nostalgia”? Impossible and ridiculous as that requires a knowledge/understanding of history.
Yes, we need to honor the Constitution more deeply by “terminating” it.
It’s time to join a hippie commune
Turley’s narrative collapses under its own false equivalences. By weaponizing a selective definition of ‘nostalgia’ based on a handful of Democrats, he ignores a far more pressing threat to our republic. The true crisis does not lie in progressive rhetoric, but in the systemic erosion of Madisonian checks and balances—driven by the consolidation of executive power and structural gerrymandering, both facilitated by an activist Supreme Court. Wrapping these radical structural changes in a fictitious blanket of ‘history and tradition’ is the ultimate Orwellian Memory Hole. It isn’t a defense of constitutional nostalgia; it is state-level propaganda.
“he ignores a far more pressing threat to our republic. ” So to try and impress readers with your pseudo intellectualism, by making a claim that has nothing to do with his OPINION.
The irony of the article is that it commits a logical fallacy while trying to call one out. Turley uses a hasty generalization (unrepresentative sampling) to create a sweeping premise about what Democrats believe. He then uses that flawed premise to accuse them of the fallacy of composition. Turley’s article argues that Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom commit the fallacy of composition by interpreting specific, flawed components of the American system as evidence that the entire institutional structure is broken.
If you don’t see how irresponsible articles like this are, you are probably someone who thinks the “Left” is a unified group.
So, yes, calling out the crippling logical flaw in an article attempting to critique others for a similar flaw is has something to do with his opinion.
You are guilty of a far worse fallacy: the fallacy of willful ignorance (aka “invincible ignorance”). And of ad hominem — of falsely attacking a man for, ironically, committing fallacies.
And of creating a strawman in order to smear JT:
“. . . to create a sweeping premise about what Democrats believe.”
He cited “leading democrats” and “establishment figures.” Nowhere in the article does he say anything about what all D’s believe.
Speaking of things “crippling:” A fevered imagination is not a tool of logic.
Conservatives should be focussed like a laser on the future. We should be more aggressive and thoughtful problem solvers than the lazy thinking, hair-on-fire left. I’m not seeing that.
Conservative thought is a cupboard full of workable strategies and tactics. A very recent example stands out:
President Trump’s investment accounts for newborn babies. This idea, already a reality, addresses wealth inequality, and the crisis of 18-year-olds entering a capitalist economy with no reserves. It is egalitarian, and yet strives to strengthen each individual player about to enter a capitalist system. It uses the tax system in a creative way to teach capitalism to children while they are growing up.
I haven’t heard any conservatives disparaging these Trump Accounts as “tax and spend”, because they are “tax and individually invest”. That’s creative and proactive. It demonstrates how moderate conservatives can compete and win intellectually with leftists — rather than defensively huddling behind nostalgia.
ANO
activist Supreme Court.
______________________
Not even close to our prior Supreme court.
I guess 50 years of dem Gerrymandering and the expansion of govt power under LBJ and other dem presidents doesn’t count.
X- try to answer this without AI
What specific Madisonian checks and balances have been systemically eroded?
“I would caution us against talking about rebuilding with any sense of nostalgia . . .”
-Cackling Carmela
Professor Turley focuses on nostalgia, but the word “rebuilding” is equally telling. Leftists are so unhappy with America, they want to destroy America and rebuild it in their image. That’s why she doesn’t want to be “burdened by what has been.” That’s how commies think. The Khmer Rouge reset the clock to “year zero” (as did the leftists of the French Revolution).
OldManFromKS,
What I find mildly alarming is if this were just the usual far leftists like Sanders, AOC, Mamdani, et al. okay. But now we are getting Cackling Carmela, Newsome, and other establishment Democrats on the same page. They just trying to appease the mob they help created? Or this is really where the establishment wants to take the party?
Erwin Chemerinsky is such a bright and smart constitutional scholar. I am so disappointed in him. I still remember when he taught the bar review course for constitutional law for the California bar decades ago, he had an encyclopedia photographic memory and would do his lectures with no notes, he was an amazing constitutional law professor. So sad he has fallen so far from the mainstream, it’s unbelievable.
The good professor Turley could not be more correct. I ask my fellow commenters to read and think about the attached article. Linda Sarsour (the star of the article) has been around for years. I remember seeing her on PBS; listening to her on NPR. As I got older, I began to appreciate MEDIA’s role in promoting periphery into mainstream.
I think of my many days on Florida’s beaches—picking up a handful of that glorious white sand, and watching/feeling it slip through my closed fingers and fist.
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2026/07/18/gtfo-linda-sarsour-calls-for-replacing-declaration-of-independence-1651143/
(p.s. “hizzoner” means mayor (Mamdani in the article). Not familiar with that word and had to look it up.)
thank you in advance to those who take the time to look at it.
(literal white sand, as in Destin and Santa Rosa, not racial white sand. I say this in prophylactic defense! )
Lin – I lived in the NYC metro area for a few years and got to know the term hizzoner. But your comment reminded me of a question one of my kids asked me when she was about five: What does “donzerly” mean?
I said, “Donzerly? What do you mean?”
She said, “Like in the national anthem: the donzerly light.”
Yours,
Uncle Henry
NotSoOld:
I thought your return comment was so funny I called my neighbors (elderly couple, very patriotic) and read it to them.
My mother would say, “send it to Reader’s Digest!”
You are committing the same logical fallacy (the hasty generalization) that Turley commits in his article. In no way does he justify why the comments of Harris, Newsom and someone tangentially connected to Mamdani are in anyway representative of Democrats en masse.
So it would make sense that you agree with him. Perhaps this is due to your reliance on sites like “BizPacReview” to source your news. Ironically, it is sites like BizPacReview that “[promote] periphery into mainstream.”
Honestly, do you believe Sarsour is the “periphery” or the “mainstream”?
Personally, I would categorize her as a central, mainstream figure within the highly activist, progressive grassroots left, certainly a polarizing, peripheral figure to the moderate, Democratic party as whole.
Packing the Supreme Court – a radical move – is now a mainstream Dem party goal.
X/George/Svelaz hiding as anonymous;
Just give it up OK? BTW, your new word “tangentially” lifted from another comment just two or three days ago? You are so laughable.
Did I get taken in, again?
I need to read your eagle-eyed vetting before replying to a comment.
“You are committing the same logical fallacy (the hasty generalization) that Turley commits in his article.”
Except for the fact that JT does not commit that fallacy.
You, however, do commit the fallacy of ad hominem, by falsely accusing him of committing a fallacy, while completely ignoring his *argument*.
So the Islamo-Marxists (Sarsour, Mamdani and their ilk) wish to replace the Declaration of Independence with a document that better reflects their values.
Would that be titled: Das Koran? The Sharia Manifesto? The Communist Allah?
And what would such a country look like? It would be a fusion of two truly wicked ideologies: communist collectivism and Islamic theocracy.
If those tyrannical creatures win, be sure you’re walking on the beach clad in black from head to toe. And have a male escort.
Sam: good ones, or maybe The Art of the Spiel.
or maybe, Not Mein, Our Kempf.
Atlas Slugged?
(thanks for taking the time to take a look at the article.)
What is missing from all this nonsense about nostalgia is what these radicals would do after they packed the court and got rid of the senate. What exactly would replace the senate or any of the other institutions that they disfavor? And perhaps most importantly, what exactly is wrong with a country’s system of laws that
gives individuals more rights than anywhere else on this earth? These radical fools have no answer beyond ignorant arrogance.
A 25 and 19 year old dead in another endless Republican Middle East war while Trump played golf, hosted a high dollar fundraiser, and tried to jump on a stage to act like he won the World Cup.
Yeah, dead trying to assure a bunch of Islamic terrorists don’t achieve nuclear capability or extort the world economy.
War is hell, when you sign the line, you may actually find yourself on it.
Johnathan’s reference to Mao Zedong got me thinking about deep values in China. And here. Some Western scholarship describes an ancient sense among the Chinese people as living life by the Mandate of Heaven. And central to it was the family unit. This goes back to before the first emperor Chin, from whom China got its name. Some years ago l knew a Chinese fellow who was retiring from a very successful aerospace career. He was moving his family back to the China home town of all his kin. There they had a family burial plot 600 years old. Getting back to family was more important to him than what ever the CPC was doing. What the socialists are doing says our vote is a petri dish that will allow us to elect ourselves out of the family we understand. To that I recall Lillie Tomlin’s thought “I wonder what the people who brought us the leisure suit plan to do with our leisure time”.
The DSA is a subversive organization. Where is Senator Joseph McCarthy when we need him?
While the US Constitution’s underlying principles are pretty straightforward and not too tough to grasp, they seem to be beyond the simple-minded utopian Leftists that infest our nation today.
Democratic representation and elections help create a reponsive government and the support of the people.
Pure democracy inevitably descends into mob rule, a state that is destructive of freedom for everyone.
Government, as an organism, always seeks to increase its power. It needs defined limits such as the Bill of Rights.
Power needs to be divided into smaller units that can cooperate or compete to help prevent concentration of power and the resulting threats to freedom.
The USC, in spite of 240 years of slick talking lawyers reading imaginary BS into the document in pursuit of selfish agendas, has been amazing in keeping power seeking individuals and raging mobs in check.
So, DSA and other wacko Leftists, enough Americans think you are the enemy and will never comply that you are doomed. Your feeble “Resist” signs are a joke compared to Americans’ finally waking up.
dead. father time cathes us all, like you boomers
@OldFish
They are subversives winning mainstream primaries, something that the radicals of the past largely failed to do; hell, Manson died in prison. So what do we do, when we ourselves created the cohorts that are enabling them, and those are the people that will presumably carry us into the future at some point?
Just look to Great Britain when it started its death slide to multiculturalism. Almost 2,000 years of solid history, government and tradition gone in a few decades when they allowed, first, anyone from their colonies to migrate there and second, when they were prodded by progressives to open the floodgates to universal immigration. They lost their culture, their rights, and their sense of pride in just decades compared to almost 2 millennia of constant growth and improvement.
We are on the cusp of this same disaster if we do not hold strongly against this tide of progressive/communist/islamist diseases meant to destroy our own heritage.
Oddly enough, I hold those on the right of the political/ideological spectrum most responsible for this. The right did not push back against every incremental step that was taken all the way back to Woodrow Wilson on up through FDR (and his socialist wife), then not heeding the warning of a misbegotten messenger about communist infiltration into our government back in the late 50s. Finally, in true acts of cowardice, the majority of those on the right cowered to the shouts of discrimination and allowed LBJ to strike the blow that would bring this nation to its knees with the great society welfare legislation.
Allowing our media/education industry to become infested with progressivism and radical theories of all nature and not even attempting to stem that tide of indoctrination embedded this alien ideology to become indoctrinated into how many generations of Americans without even a meaningful pushback.
Now we are dealing with an onslaught of foreign and conflicting values in the open border policies of the left that has flooded our nation with hoodlums from around the globe and unassimilating hordes of those wishing to overtake this depleted culture.
We brought this on ourselves in our timid politeness and cowardice to confront what any historian of worth could have pointed out as a pattern of growing disruption of our culture. Just look to any failed empire and it was brought about by multiculturalism destroying the very soul of a nation/culture and diluting it to the point of irrelevancy.
Why do you suppose they want to disarm us?
The one person on this blog that I would not believe or take advice from…. whimislacmama the blog Nazi.
Why not? She is way smarter than you.
You fear truth much more than anything else on this blog. You are an empty vessel, perhaps a bot/paid troll, but your vapid snark is predictably wrong each time. You are either paid to disrupt or you are unhinged to the point of a lack of contact with reality. You are predictable and that is boring.
This comment by whimsicalmama is nothing more than uninformed nonsensical garbage interspersed with wishful thinking and fantasy.
Great Britain does not have “2,000 years of solid history, government and tradition”.
Until 1,000 years ago there were no countries or kingdoms or any form of government whatsoever. The island we now know as Great Britain was simply home to a motley collection of Celtic tribes ruled by warlords. The kingdoms of England, Scotland and Wales did not emerge until 1,000 years ago.
Great Britain did not even exist until 1707.
Before that there were the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Wales, which were all absolute monarchies.
There was almost constant fighting and upheaval between the kingdoms and within the kingdoms in the form of multiple civil wars. There was also a period of military dictatorship under Oliver Cromwell.
The idea that Great Britain has had 2,000 years of stable government and tradition is utterly insane.
Again, you mistake cultural history with government – a simple mistake for the uniformed. You are predictable in your continued failed attempts at a cogent response.
You are the one that is completely and utterly “uninformed”. And the correct word is in fact “uninformed”, not “uniformed”, which as speakers of the King’s English such as myself recognise as meaning the wearing of a uniform. You are simply one of the semi-literate colonials that you disparage as not worthy of living in a civilised country. Indeed, you continue to live in one of those uncivilised former colonies.
You are the one that invoked 2,000 years of “government” that simply did not exist.
You are the one that invoked 2,000 years of solid history and tradition that simply does not exist.
There is no way that it can be said that there is 2,000 years of stable tradition and government in Great Britain, for the reasons I set out above.
You are a pompous UNINFORMED idiot.
I keep punching you in the right spot, you can’t help yourself when it comes to spewing meaningless vitriol (everyone makes a typo or two here). You are always vapid, mean and utterly inconsequential and predictable but never a cogent addition to the conversation at hand. All you ever offer is discord and contrarianism.
As I said, you are simply one of those colonials who are not fit to live in a civilised country.
When confronted with actual, historical facts from someone who is intimately familiar with his own country, all you can offer is craven, mean spirited, personal insults, thus proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are indeed one of those semi-literate colonials unfit to live in civilised society. This is further confirmed by your worship of the thoroughly unprincipled demagogue who leads the former colony in which you live, and is the laughing stock of the world.
I note that you prefer to resort to personal insults, rather than attempt to rebut what I have said, thus proving that you know that I am perfectly correct, and that you are aware that you are spewing utterly meaningless MAGA fantasy and delusion.
” the one that invoked 2,000 years of “government”
You claim a Gotcha so on AI or elsewhere; you asked for help to create it. You are showing your ignorance of history in the manner you corrected Whimsical. She was looking at the bedrock of history, 43 AD, when the Romans successfully conquered and occupied Britain, connecting it to the rest of the Western world. It was Britain’s beginning, spanning 2,000 years of the Roman-Judeo-Christian legal tradition.
In the end, Whimsical was correct, and your need to pull her down reflects your own status in life; you cannot climb the ladder without pulling someone else down.
Wow, just wow !!!!
The lunatics are really coming out of the woodwork today.
The Romans did not impose a Judeo-Christian legal tradition. That idea is pure insanity.
The Romans were not Jewish and they certainly were not Christian. They were busy persecuting those communities at the time. There was no Judeo-Christian legal tradition ANYWHERE in 43 AD. You are completely out of your mind. There were only a small handful of Christians in the Middle East.
The Romans imposed a harsh military dictatorship on Britain until they left about 400 AD. During that time they persecuted the native Britons and looted as much wealth as they could. When they left, Britain collapsed into total chaos as the Celtic and Anglo-Saxon tribes fought among themselves and formed literally dozens of small “kingdoms” ruled over by warlords.
Over the next few hundred years the tribes and kingdoms gradually consolidated into what became classical medieval feudalism with absolute monarchs and no legal system whatsoever, and certainly not anything even remotely resembling a Judeo-Christian legal tradition.
Up until the 17th century Britain was a feudal society with an absolute monarch and the ONLY legal tradition was the word of the monarch.
The idea that Great Britain, which did not even exist until 1707, experienced 2,000 years of “solid history, government and tradition, as suggested by whimsicalmama, is complete and utter insanity.
There is no other way to describe such deviant and ignorant thinking.
wow. just wow. Whimsical graduated with a higher degree but X found a shortcut, AI and Wiki and Google.
Now he can be a lawyer, scientist, historian, physician, legislator, interpreter, and armchair physician, political scientist, prognosticator, and astronomer all by hisself! Well, not really. he does have his anonymous darker side.
Really ???
whimsicalmama has a higher degree ??
Did she attend one of those dens of inequity, otherwise known as universities, that are nothing more than institutions devoted to leftist, socialist, and communist indoctrination??
No one said the Romans imposed a Judeo-Christian legal tradition in 43 AD; it was a timeline statement to help you understand history:
‘It was Britain’s beginning, spanning 2,000 years of the Roman-Judeo-Christian legal tradition.’
Reading comprehension matters, but your desperation for a ‘gotcha’ makes you act like the very lunatic you call others.
As for Great Britain ‘not existing until 1707, we are talking about the island of Britain (Pritini ?sp), a continuous geographic and civilizational entity named over 2,000 years ago by the Celts and Greeks.
Put down the keyboard and grab a history book.
Nostalgia? You don’t need no stinking 250 year old constitutional nostalgia. Comrade’s AOC and Sanders will tell you what’s best for you. No longer will you strive, work and be successful, you’ll work for the state (and like it), where all things will be free. Police will be a memory, all criminals will be free, no borders just welcome centers,. Do we really need a Supreme Court the Central Committee knows better? Nirvana will finally be realized, just trust us, look at Cuba, Venezuela and who can forget the joys of the Soviet Union and winter respites of the gulag system?
*. SCOTUS has fallen. The birthright opinion is nothing more than squatters’ rights. Let’s always remember John Roberts stellar statement, “legal or illegal”.
Take heart, the US does still exist in the lords many mansions. It’s known as heaven.
^ . NEVERMIND trespass. Any property manager, realtor has a more accurate opinion. Now they request 14 million dollars for security. Jocelyn Nungaray and Lakin Riley thought they already had security. Guess not.
No one listens to SCOTUS anymore.
The operative word is “deracination”. It precedes the replacement of traditional institutions by slavery of some kind.
What these dangerous idiots fail to realize is that if the revolution they so desire were to ever come about, no matter who came out on top, radical Left or reactionary Right, they’d be the first up against the wall.