GOP justice Amy Coney Barrett worried people see Supreme Court as partisan

If the foo shits, Amy, wear it.


Be fair, that’s Clarence Thomas’s schtick and he’s the master of it.


source (3)

Well there is a reason for that. They fucking are.


Lady, that ship sailed a long time ago.
Remember Bush v. Gore? Hmmmmm? Just to name one…
And since you and your fellow FDCs are either members of, or associated with, the Federalist Society, the term ‘Partisan Hack’ certainly applies.

This link is a list of some of the members [past & present] of the FS.
Some of these names might be familiar…

Kill the filibuster. Pack the courts. Pass the voter rights laws.

EDIT: tyop


Please don’t speak her name, she might appear.


Leopard, who was installed by the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party, expresses concern that people might be of the opinion that people’s faces are going to be eaten. While picking scraps of face out from between her teeth.

Because it’s the Party of Leopards Eating People’s Faces And Also There’s Nothing Wrong With The Gaslights Are You Sure You’re OK?


Ah, but that’s different and notable because it’s not what she said. Which is sort of what the BB post said. She says they are not partisan, but is fine being seen as ideological. Which may be true: SC justices may not be partisan, but they are ideological. They may not actively be making decisions for their team in a partisan manor, but it was the alignment of their ideology with partisans that got them the job.

And in that respect, I can well believe they may still deliberate. A lot and vociferously. But I can also believe they aren’t persuading each other due to entrenched ideologies.

In that respect, I take the advice of a friend: there’s no point in hating the desert for being dry. That solves nothing. Better to recognize the desert is dry and work from there.

All their accusations are actually confessions.


“My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks,”
She told the guests at a Sunday celebration of the 30th anniversary of the opening of the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville. The private event to honor Mitch McConnell who shoehorned her in just a week before the election.

The Wonkette coverage, as always, has the best headline and is a good read.



To be fair, it is mostly theocratic hacks at this point.


She is one pink outfit away from a total Deloris Umbridge cosplay.


I mean, if you need to repeatedly align yourself with a party, attend their fundraisers and functions, then how would someone be able to tell that you’re not a partisan? It’s literally a speech to a room full of partisans about how much it hurts to be called a partisan.


OK… So, just in case anyone here is not already totally clear on this: The blurb here at Boing Boing kindasorta suggests at the end that we should distinguish between the political process of appointing justices and the deliberative process of SCOTUS. Maybe I’m reading into it. But this is such a common USian shibboleth that I’m going to…


There. If anyone wants a quick and easy way to understand that, there are several good episodes of Slate’s Amicus podcast that get into it. There are probably other podcasts too. The main thing is to really, truly come to terms with the fact that history books K-12 and in a lot of college intro classes are just straight-up quietist propaganda.*

(Look, Dear Reader, I know you know already. But sometimes you just have to let yourself and everyone know that “There are four lights!”)

  • Forgot to address journalism, but you can guess…

People who have imaginary friends, base their morals and opinions on fiction and mythology should not be judges. Let alone someone who rules above and can change the law or the way it is interpreted.

1 Like