The contrast in the way “progressives” view the recent controversial decisions by SCOTUS is interesting (and entertaining).
When a ruling from SCOTUS overturns precedent on constitutional grounds in favor of a position held by our brothers on the left, the constitution is a living thing, capable of evolution complete with “penumbras” and such clap-trap. Precedent was of little importance, whether it was good law or not.
On the other hand if a precedent-overturning decision favors the more conservative side, OMG sacrosanct precedent must be preserved at all cost. Sack-cloth and ashes are called for. Again, good law or not.
We must open the door to increasing the court’s membership to 12 so that when the opposing party is in the majority it can jump to 15 or some such equal clap-trap. The fact that the pendulum swings both ways (as it will shortly) be damned!!
I wish I were more eloquent and perhaps deserving of a My Turn but the left might have asked Harry Reid how changing the filibuster requirement during the SCOTUS confirmation process worked out.
Jim Rourke
Orange