House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has struggled to pander to the mob to secure power in the midterm elections, including brandishing a baseball bat on social media to show his radical bona fides. With Democratic Socialists chanting “you’re next” when seeing Jeffries, he continues to struggle to stay in front of the mob. This week, he doubled down on his pledge to throw the Supreme Court to the mob if they make him the next Speaker of the House of Representatives.
After the recent gains by far-left candidates in states like Minnesota and the near victory of Democratic Socialist Francesca Hong in Wisconsin, Jeffries came out to reaffirm his intent to radically change the highest court. According to the Washington Times, Jeffries declared, “There’s a variety of different options that are on the table, and I think that we can’t foreclose any single one of them.” He added that the “conservative, right-wing majority on the Supreme Court has become basically a subsidiary of the MAGA Republican Party.”
He promised to make far-left Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) the driving force behind changing the Court, including possible 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices and expanding the Court to create an instant liberal majority.
Notably, none of these figures were claiming that the Court was fundamentally flawed until it ruled against them, particularly in cases that impacted their political power such as declaring racial gerrymandering to be unconstitutional.
What is interesting is that the liberal justices reject this narrative, reminding citizens that the Court has delivered major losses to the Trump Administration. Indeed, President Trump has routinely attacked conservative justices for ruling against him and his Administration.
In addition, polls show that the majority of the public supports virtually all of the recent major rulings, including the ban on racial gerrymandering. It is only the Democrats who oppose those rulings and are now demanding a hostile takeover of the Court.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) has called for packing the Court because it does not follow her views and those of “widely held public opinion.” I have pushed back on that rationale, given the Court’s function as a countermajoritarian institution. However, these polls even challenge the flawed rationale for court packing.
So Jeffries is promising that the work of James Madison will be undone by the likes of Jamie Raskin and Elizabeth Warren. To have these calls on our 250th anniversary is crushingly ironic. Other leading Democrats have lined up to pledge to fundamentally change the Court, which has played a key role in making this the oldest and most stable republic in history.
It is simply about power. 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.”
I have called it the Nike School of Constitutional Law. Democratic leaders are pledging to “just do it” to appease the mob. Of course, some of these measures would be challenged if done without constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court would then have to rule on the effort to pack or limit its members. The expansion can be done by legislative vote. Although most Americans oppose court packing, Democrats view control of the Court as essential to pushing through a radical agenda to change the political system to their advantage.
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.
In Federalist 10, Madison discussed the destructive im
pact of factions in forcing through opportunistic changes to advance their interests:
“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”
We are witnessing the same factional politics being pushed by leaders who believe that they can ride a rage wave into power. They have a greater likelihood of causing lasting damage to our system than guaranteeing their own lasting power. History is not on their side. Today’s revolutionaries are often tomorrow’s reactionaries in an age of rage.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Hakeem would lose his enthusiasm for court packing if Trump began to do it.
Despite watching Trump they haven’t tumbled to ‘shoe, other foot’ yet. It isn’t happening because Trump respects the law and traditions of America. But under certain conditions he might do the unexpected.
This is why the Second Amendment exists.
They’ll be barreling across borders armed, good anon, when President Piker is installed and the US will attack Israel and defend Iran. So much for cutting off the genitals of children and aborting 9 month old infants and ghey marriage…
I think what the country really needs is a good civics lesson, explaining what the Supreme Court’s role really is. It’s not, as Sen. Warren asserts, to “follow her views and those of ‘widely held public opinion.’ ” It’s to interpret the Constitution. Most Americans don’t seem to understand that, especially since Roe v. Wade was overturned. (And I’m sorry the Court didn’t really explain to the public WHY Roe needed to be overturned; WHY it was such a bad decision from day one. Commentators still don’t explain it correctly.) For decades we got a liberal “interpretation” of the Constitution; how we’re getting a conservative one. We waited our turn, played by the rules, and now they want to change the rules when they don’t like some of the current justices.
If the liberals in Congress really plan to pack the Court once they are back in the majority, then the conservatives in Congress now really should just go ahead this fall and pass a law to raise the number of justices so the current Republican President can nominate new justices to fill all those spots. Then in another decade or so we’ll have 30 or 40 justices on the Court. . .
Unfortunately the Supreme Court doesn’t understand that either. They made up the equivalent of Roe-style “penumbras and emanations” in Louisiana v. Callais, for example, by inventing a new evidentiary hurdle for plaintiffs to have to show that the government’s redistricting effort cannot be explained by mere partisanship.
Then, in an unsigned 4 page emergency order, they reverse their own 2023 merits decision in Allen v. Milligan, rewarding state defiance (aka activism) over any serious constitutional analysis. The order was purely outcome-driven and completely ignored the 14th Amendment, which just weeks prior they said their opinion in Callais was NOT based on.
Roe was bad. This is equally bad. Pure judicial activism. Not constitutional interpretation.
The Supreme Court’s role initially was and always has been to protect the property and power of land-owning white men and reinforce whatever method of cheap labor existed to further enrich the same. Their secondary role is to undo any rash acts of Congress to restore things in favor of their original purpose. They have forever been appointed by rich men, and the one Black one who made appointments had to stay within the norms to get past the group of majority-white men who had to approve them. The appointees if they weren’t already, soon became rich so they would understand what they needed to protect.
You may now begin the name-calling but that won’t make any of what I’ve said untrue. You’d rather target the messenger than the facts.
enigma finds racism in popcorn. in balloons. in candy. in road signs. in paint. in rainbows. in churches.
An example of attacking the messenger while ignoring all truth of the message. As predicted.
nope. just reading your comments over the last few weeks. Every story turns into racism. then you try to play non-racist hero when called out. No one’s attacking the messenger. The messenger has no clothes.
You are doing nothing but attacking the messenger and literally addressed none of the message.
You’re just exercising your right to free speech and your black privileged opinion. You’re welcome to it but that doesn’t make it true.
Argue the facts! You can’t.
The role and origin of the Judiciary is clearly defined in Article III. It is to interpret the challenges to laws and assure that those challenges conform to interpretation and rationale of the Constitution, specifically furthered in Article VI anchoring the Judiciary and Law of the Land, to our Constitution.
Sorry, that’s the facts and not much to argue against your biases other than justices are people with their own biases and opinions, a couple maybe just like yours.
My turn to exercise now:
It can be our little Tar Baby.🤣
I probably have to explain the inherent racism in the Constitution as well. But as you weren’t an Indian not taxed, or a woman, or a person held to service or labour, you wouldn’t understand.
Please keep using the term “tar baby” in whatever context you like. You are identifying yourself for what you are.
your version on B’rer Rabbit was disgusting, and without evidence or merit. Tar on you for tainting the wonderful book and story with your claims of racism. I agree with the other anonymous, every thing you see, you try to twist into a racism issue.
Someone agreeing with anonymous says a lot about the nature of this board. You aren’t getting my version of Br’er Rabbit or more particularly “tar baby.” You’re getting the description of how the term is commonly used and recognized.
I most certainly will, thank you for your permission.
Enigma, when facts are provided, you refute everything with a double standard. You can be inflammatory against “white,” but where “black” is concerned, you seem to be overly sensitive. Jefferies will wield a baseball bat, and so will Lester Maddox.
With one exception, no one is providing facts to refute. One person felt the Warren Court was an exception to which I responded with some agreement but discussed facts to make my point. I’d have more to say about Jeffries and a baseball bat if I’d ever seen Turley concerned about Musk with a chainsaw or Trump holding guns. How is my truthfully describing the Supreme Court and the Constitution, inflammatory?
When facts are provided, you don’t refute; you run away. And most of your supposed facts are laced with racist or self-serving political statements
What facts were provided. And yes, what I said about the Supreme Court and the Constitution points out their inherent racism. While you and others may wish otherwise, they are what they are.
When I say you run away from facts, that obviously doesn’t limit itself to a few sentences; rather, it involves your entire history.
I don’t think anyone denies the existence of racism now or in the past. Unfortunately, you limit yourself almost exclusively to racism, TDS, and hate. Yes, race was involved in the formation of the Constitution, but that was not the primary reason for the Constitution to be written; protection through a union was. But you want to make it all about racism. Yes, people on the Supreme Court might have biases, but I don’t think any are racists. If you do, discuss that aspect.
“I don’t think anyone denies the existence of racism now or in the past.”
Do you read the posts on this blog? I pointed out the historical racism of the Supreme Court and the Constitution, and all people have done is deny it.
The 60’s Black Panthers are calling, they want their “black power” slogans.
The message remains unchallenged.
not sure if thats “always” been true. The Warren Court would largely beg to differ. But certainly true for the vast majority of its history.
The Warren Court did some good things though I think Brown v. Board gets too much credit. There was no plan for implementation and even Brown II the following year gave us the useless “WIth All Deliberate Speed” which gave segregationists decades to avoid integration. Many of their other decisions were beaten back by future courts, especially United States v. Nixon which established that no man, not even the President, was above the law. We now have presidential immunity so how’d that work out?
Presidential immunity worked out well for Obama, who ordered the extrajudicial killing by drone of an American citizen — and, two weeks later, the man’s American citizen son.
Implementation/execution really isn’t the purview of the Courts, hard to fault the Warren Court for that.
And again, the rolling back that occurred with “future courts” like the Burger Court in US v. Nixon, is not the Warren Court.
My point was only that the Warren Court shouldn’t be grouped in with other eras.
I addressed the institution, there was some progress within the Warren Court which was addressed by later courts. The institution did what it was intended.
It is worth noting that the last time a majority of the Court was appointed by Democrats was in 1969, during the Warren Court era. That ended with Fortas’s resignation.
The institution is meant to be a reflection of the policy choices of the President. The discussion about the Warren Court is meant to show that your conclusion regarding the entire history of the Court may fail to recognize the independent variable, which has been the historically poor ability for Democratic Presidents to appoint Justices during their terms in office. Given that we have had nearly the same amount of years since 1969 under a Democratic and a GOP President, much of this result is by design (intentional retirements of GOP-appointed justices, lower ages of GOP appointments, questionable tactics to deny Democratic Presidents their power to approve nominated judges, etc.).
Court reform is not necessary to adopt similar tactics.
“The institution is meant to be a reflection of the policy choices of the President.”
That is so far from the truth, you need to repeat every history class you ever had. The institution isn’t supposed to change its policies with each new President. The Constitution wasn’t meant to change with elections but is dynamic enough to allow Amendments. You should just stop while you’re behind.
How did Obama sneak Sotomayor past those (presumably racist) white men?
Because she would ultimately have little or no impact on changing the system.
Several countries along the African coast built vast empires by capturing and auctioning black people off as slaves.
A few of those countries – Ghana, Benin, Sierre Leone, and Burkina Faso – have made it very easy for black Americans to move to those countries and establish citizenship there. If I remember correctly, at least one of them even provide a small stipend to black Americans who choose to move there.
Have you considered moving?
Can you provide any solid evidence to support your assertion? Any original documents? Which of the Federalist Letters would you cite?
Didn’t think so…
Obama could get things through Congress only his first two years, when from time to time he had a filibuster-proof majority. Even so, that great Southern gentleman, Lindsey Graham, voted Kagan and Sotomayor out of committee. Two liberal justices replaced two liberal justices.
The Tea Party victory essentially ended Obama’s presidency. He could not even persuade McConnell and Boehner to come to the White House for dinner.
At the end of his second term, when he was the lamest of ducks, Obama had the temerity to try to replace the conservative icon Scalia, with a drip who would have been the third-most liberal, after RBG and Sotomayor.
McConnell treated his nomination with the seriousness it deserved, but Obama refused to substitute a more moderate candidate.
Oh well.
Don’t you mean the one half-black one?
Perhaps you’ve forgotten the one-drop rule?
That in itself is a misunderstanding of the Supreme Court’s role.
The Court sits atop the Federal Judiciary, which has dozens of District and Appellate Courts. This Judiciary includes Jurors, many thousand every year, who decide the facts in cases after adversarial presentations. The Judges don’t decide facts, but are supposed to neutrally magistrate the process, and provide clarification of the applicable law. Historically, Jurors not only sorted out the facts, but custom-fit the law and common-sense morality to cases that invited it.
The role of the Supreme Court is to resolve conflicting interpretations (and applications) of the law arising among the lower courts. Most of these conflicts get resolved based on Congressional law without reference to the Constitution. A handful of cases every year oblige the Supremes to weigh in on conflicting interpretations of the Constitution. Then, the lower courts can proceed with a more unified approach to future similar cases.
More than anytime before in my life, we have a Supreme Court that sticks pretty closely to its proper role. My main criticism is that there has been a softening of the authority ceded to Juries and Grand Juries to ask probing questions and apply common-sense moral judgment upon edge-cases where the letter of the law is ambiguous. The elites operating in the Judiciary (lawyers and Judges) seem only to happy to keep narrowing the power of Juries in the direction of an advisory body able to be overruled when convenient to litigants. The President is one of the most brazen elitists undercutting the authority of Juries to establish facts and verdicts with finality.
The current Chief Justice is to my mind a pathetic weakling. He never pinned down accountability for the Dobbs leak, and has done nothing to discipline the District Courts from taking up “political policy” cases, where the Plaintiff’s claim of injury is entirely pretextual. These political-activist plaintiffs swamped the lower courts after the Kamala Harris defeat.
Why isn’t the entire democrat party outlawed because they openly state their hatred for American institutions like the US Supreme Court, federal laws, etc.? They are worse than their predecessor that engulfed the South in the late 1850’s & started the Civil War to keep black people enslaved! I know we had federal laws against marxism–why aren’t they being enforced right now?
So its a crime to hate American institutions? Gawd, you are stupid.
Gawd ANON IS A MORON
No, it is not a crime to hate American institutions but these far left people who are elected and say they don’t support the constitution should not be sworn into congress for which you swear to uphold the very constitution they claim to want to destroy! We should not clutch a viper to our breast!
The 14th Amendment has something to say about this, but it pertains only to those who previously took an oath to support the Constitution: “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
We can hate the left as much as they hate us. None of it goes beyond opinion until a real law is broken.
Sue
You need a better history lesson on the Civil War. Try to find some history lessons that are based on facts and were pre-rewriting the actual causes for the conflict.
Hakim Jeffries has made a terrorist threat. Whether it was to influence the Supreme Court or pander to the radicals in his party like himself, it does not matter. Arrest, censure, expulsion, and jail time should all be imposed. This NOT free speech.
Made a terrorist threat? Folks, and you wonder why this country is f-ed up. Look at the commenters here.
I’m looking at one directly above me who has nothing better to do than snark quippy one-liners and disrupt the proceedings of the comments section. Normal people use this too; stop turning it into your personal vendetta market.
yes, the educated and righteous in this nation are fed up with the spawn of marx and the progressive, humanistic barren left. It is time to clean house of the detritus left after progressive european ideology spoiled the waters over here. It surely must be something in the water that attacks what functioning brain cells are encased in a prog/left noggin.
Packing SCOTUS would render the Constitution, its amendments, and the Bill of Rights all a dead letter. They support this to gain power for themselves over citizens they swore an oath to serve. I don’t think the country would sit quietly and watch the Dems destroy our capitalist democratic republic. This is a promise to attack our freedom, security and prosperity. This action would divide the country like nothing has since the Civil War. To paraphrase the words of Chuck Schumer, do this and you will reap the whirlwind.
Chuck ripped a whirlwind.
How about term limits for congress? Jefferies and ilk don’t want to talk about it but there lays the problem.
The founders where against term limits (even for the POTUS) for good reason. We have already made a president a lame duck in their second term. Term limits on congress would only create more of this. The people have the ability to apply a term limit through their vote. We need to vote in better people.
Yes, and the pipeline of candidates of exemplary character and accomplishment will be broadened by the Supreme Court reversing the Sullivan decision, which made defamation so hard to prove it green-lit character assassination as a routine tool of political competition (and media sensationalism).
I like to imagine a world w/o a No Third Term Amendment. Ike serves another four years Khrushschev does not chalkenge the man who won WW II. Ike is too savvy to get us embroiled in Vietnam. No assassination. LBJ leads civil rights from the Senate. Etc.
Turley,
When did Jeffries say he would let Elizabeth Warren lead SCOTUS reform? Warren is not even part of the House and therefore he has no structural authority to task her with leading such reform efforts.
If your goal is to use Madison to warn against the dangers of a faction subverting constitutional norms, your own reliance on a factually inaccurate, sweeping generalization undercuts your point. Madison’s Federalist No. 10 warns against real, organically formed groups unified by a specific, singular passion. By incorrectly stating that Jeffries “promised” the work to Warren, you manufacture a precise cross-chamber alliance that Jeffries did not actually propose.
The real irony here is that by getting the facts wrong, you shift your own writing into factional rhetoric itself. You use the concept of a faction as a political weapon, which is EXACTLY the kind of polarized, bad faith public debate Madison hoped the Constitution would prevent.
Or to put it in your own words, you are just fueling the “Age of Rage” with your own highly politicized factually incorrect post.
It’s a salutory “Professor Turley” to you, little twit. DId he flunk you in one of his classes or sumpin?
Anonymous, please reread the column. Professor Turley did not say that.
“So Jeffries is promising that the work of James Madison will be undone by the likes of Jamie Raskin and Elizabeth Warren. ”
By “the work of James Madison”, he means the creation of our separation of powers, which insulates our Supreme Court from “public passions.” You can get this both from article – just read it! – and Turley’s previous columns (see for example: https://jonathanturley.org/2021/12/29/the-consequences-for-popular-democracy-could-be-dire-new-york-magazine-decries-the-popularity-of-chief-justice-roberts/), which is perhaps clearer.
Thus, this post is factually incorrect in claiming that Jeffries somehow promises Warren with the undoing of our Supreme Court’s insulation from majoritarian partisanship, via court packing to serve Democratic interests.
How the heck else can one read that?
Parallel bills are frequently introduced in both the House and the Senate at the same time.
Tax bills are the only ones that must start in the House.
Yes, sometimes there are parallel bills, but nothing Jefferies has said indicates that he wants Warren to bring a parallel bill to the Senate.
Thus, the point remains that Turley’s post is factually incorrect.
Yeah BABY – JUNGLE JUSTICE for those you disagree with even on an academic level! Hmmm, and the privileged illuminati wonder why the suburban masses could be slightly upset at the violence that regularly permeates their communities? Could it be because the Black Robe Liberal Fools think it is a personal right to strike out with violence when upset, angered, or offended? Sure does look that way as a certain community’s culture of violence normalizes its behavior up the societal ladder to include low IQ politicians. Well FIRE begets an equal and opposite force so there maybe a backlash on that behavior eventually.
Just imagine if the Democrat party leaders stood up for the majority of the party! Going with this fringe DSA is killing the party and leaving the more moderates few choices. Will they vote Republican or not vote at all. Jefferies is only showing that power is more important that our Constitution. He has proven he is NOT a leader. Guess the proof is the baseball bat!
HE IS A USLESS TRAITOR – WHY CANNOT HE BE CHARGED WITH OPENLY CALLING FOR OPEN REBELLION, SEDITION AND VIOLENCE THROUGH MAKING TERRORISTIC THREATS
TRAITOR? Useless? Obviously not, look at the reaction from the MGAots here. Just doing his job.
What is the probability of this actually happening?
Zero
Is he threatening the Supreme Court? If so, I would assume that’s grounds for imprisonment.
You assumed wrong. As usual.
He is threatening the American system. Lust for power is plain lust. Too bad for him and us.
Barrett and Kagan just asked congress for an additional 14 million dollars to be used for security. Yes, death threats are taken seriously and thus the birthright opinion error leaving Hasan Piker as natural born and the next presidential candidate.
Jeffries is a primitive, a Neanderthal and violent, anon.
^^ It’s highly suspected that the court paved the way to Piker’s presidency. Barrett and Kagan should have recused because of fear. Watch…
And that branch of that tree extends into most of our educational institutions and even, now, on to our supreme court.
You suck at analogies.
ANON SUCKS
Oh dustoff, go back to the cellar and watch some more porn.
Talking about yourself… Figures.
A baseball bat? Incendiary? Let’s give this some thought. Hakeem Jeffries is the nephew of Leonard Jeffries. This is an except from Wikipedia about Leonard Jeffries: “Jeffries’s claims that Jewish businessmen financed the Atlantic slave trade and used the movie industry to hurt black people, and that whites are ‘ice people’ while blacks are ‘sun people’, received national publicity in the early 1990s. Jeffries was discharged from his position as chair of CUNY’s Black Studies Department, leading to a long legal battle that ended with the courts affirming the college’s right to remove him from the position due to his incendiary remarks.” … Let’s ask ourselves this question: How close were Hakeem Jeffries and his uncle Leonard, during Hakeem’s formative years?
The point, he’s wielding a baseball. Not his background.
I don’t see a baseball in that photo. In fact, I don’t recall ever seeing Jefferies with a baseball.
Anon – your spam posting is entertaining in a “aw, look at him, he’s trying to form a sentence,” kind of way.
The point, clearly, is that Jefferies is advocating for radical destruction. It is reasonable to see where such thoughts might have been influenced.
aw, look at him, he’s trying to be sarcastic. That you’d even waste your time responding…
Jefferies denies knowing much about his uncle’s antisemitic statements, but he defended his uncle and Louis Farrakhan for saying those things in an op ed many years ago. Can we say Jefferies lied?
S.S.B.
As in: Dreams From My Father?
-g
Having utterly destroyed Iran’s military capability, how is it they have us by the balls, controlling the Strait?
Democrat support.
Trump is lying?
One round left and Trump will not pull the trigger friend! The strategic oil reserve is still empty and POTUS braggs about talks going well…BS!
I sadly say, Trump had it all and lost it. His ego is his worst enemy and I voted for him twice.
Best Regards
You got a fetish about oil reserves eh.. under Biden there was in fact at ZERO reserves. You failed to mention that. Under Trump, 42%.
And the USA exports 6 mm barrels a day. So wheres the problem?
The oil reserves are typically replenished depending necessity and when the cost per barrel is low.
America has plenty of natural reserves fairly readily available in the North slope if a true emergency were to arrive. The bigger issue is refineries and production of fuels although jet fuels and diesel are the lower rungs on the ladder of the distillation process.
Just more Orange Man anonnynonsense.
Russia and China may be sending them supplies.
Ahhh Russia is having their oil issues with Ukraine blowing up their old sources.
They don’t…
Democrats are promising to unleash Fascism on America, claiming it’s to preserve “democracy”. It is the most shameless and naked power grab in American history, and they are open about it. The Supreme Court is not there to rule based on “feelings” (despite what unqualified “justice” Ketanji Brown Jackson thinks) but on whether a law violates the Constitution. The Supreme Court is supposed to defer to the wisdom of the Founders, not the whims of popular opinion. Shame of the Demofascists and their cheerleaders.
Could it be that the ideology of the prog/left is so antithetical to our constitution that they need to whip up a frenzy about how “unfeeling” they are when they rule on a legal matter so that the mobs that they generate will ultimately undo the entire ball of wax and let loose mob chaos until we are nothing but ruins – both culturally and economicially?
No it could not be. They’ve made no attempt to destroying the Constitution. Calling for its destruction and actually doing it are not the same. You stupid old woman.
Buenas Whimmsy
It sure worked well for them during the Summer of Love now didn’t it?!
Mostly Peaceful killings, looting and arson.
Please never forget, the Obama acolytes were providing bail for those arrested. I would bet it was with our own laundered tax dollars too! Pallets of bricks dropped off for the peaceful protesters! Yep, that was all provided for by the Party of the great divider in Chief!
Believe them for their words.
“Democrats are promising to unleash Fascism on America…” Its been here for over a hundred years. And they have in fact preserved democracy, the Constitution is still working ans as for that power grab, good ole Trump is certainly showing some skill.
(” This week, he doubled down on his pledge to throw the Supreme Court to the mob if they make him the next Speaker of the House of Representatives”)
Allowing our government to be run by the mob” is entirely the reason we are a Federal Republic of States rather than a mob democracy. By stating his desires so inelegantly, he has illustrated the base ideology of the dem party and their reliance on mob mentality to achieve power.
Mob? What a stupid and false description. Its the Democrat Party. You constantly show how demented and sick you are.
If you had a clear unfettered brain free of hate, you would see that MAGA is mob.
I wonder if you’re called the wicked witch in your neighbor.
I vote republican.
I vote
If you had a clear unfettered brain free of hate, you would see that MAGA is mob.
****************************
Please tell us, what cities have we burn down. Stores robbed of most everything.
Fascist Eat their Own!
The Democrat Party needs to be Destroyed
It may come to that but they are pretty good at self destruction.
Eat? So where are the leftovers?
Like uncle, like nephew. The acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree.
Maybe a blind Pig will find them both and gobble them both up!
There’s always hope.