I wouldn't say they're performance art. They're emotional outlets. I had this discussion with someone, asking why people were protesting outside Kavanaugh's house. My view was that this didn't make sense, as the guy who was trolling everyone was Thomas, and the guy who authored the opinion was Alito, so it didn't make sense to me to prot…
I wouldn't say they're performance art. They're emotional outlets. I had this discussion with someone, asking why people were protesting outside Kavanaugh's house. My view was that this didn't make sense, as the guy who was trolling everyone was Thomas, and the guy who authored the opinion was Alito, so it didn't make sense to me to protest outside of Kavanaugh's house. The response I got was that it was emotional, not rational. And that made sense to me.
Is there some performance art going on? Yeah. But I think that protests like these are generally an emotional outpouring where people don't know how or where to take their energy. This is made worse by a democratic party that fundamentally does not know how to use their grassroots the way the GOP does. As a result, private groups fill the gap.
It's because, if you believe even some of the allegations against Kavanaugh, he has a history of disrespecting women's bodily autonomy in his personal life. Despite this, he was elevated to a position of power. He has used his power to roll back the amount of bodily autonomy for all women in America. Thomas and Alito may claim to oppose Roe on a matter of principle or constitutional overreach or whatever. You can credibly argue though that Kavanaugh just doesn't care about women's bodily autonomy.
Maybe it's also a feeling that Kavanaugh is the most unfit of four unfit judges. The most unqualfied. Tying with Thomas for whiniest. Thomas and Alito are the most ideological, Barrett possibly the most radical but not always insane. To me Thomas, Kavanaugh and Barrett do NOT belong on the Court, have never been qualified or fit for it. Gorsuch, while illegitimately on the court in a stolen seat (as were all of Trump appointees IMHO but Gorsuch most obviously), is at least qualified.
The problem is that Gorsuch is effectively a pro-corporatist shill--which is why he got the spot ITFP. That is an aspect of this whole thing that a lot of people miss--it isn't JUST about abortion. There is a whole slew of things that the GoP wishes to do away with that these people would be behind because of their ideological position as "originalists."
That's exactly correct! Gorsuch (who is from CO and I am familiar with his family) is at least an experienced jurist. But he is part of the ideology of "originalist" which aims to raze the social safety net and social contract of the country.
BTW, "originalist" -- which Scalia raised to hide behind when indulging his own activism, while bemoaning the 9th circuit "activists" -- is not accurate the way it is used. The SCOTUS Republicans are no more honest than congressional ones and statehouse ones, especially in justifying their dishonest and unconstitutional behaviors. "Originalist" is Scalia meant "my interpretation." Kind of like the Marbury v Madison court which made itself the final arbiter over much more than the Constitution gave it to decide.
Even then an actually originalist reading of the Constitution isn't something that many contemporary Americans would actually like.
The contemporary US is largely a creation of the Civil War and it overturned a lot of the original concept of the US (because the original concept failed and failed pretty hard).
I wouldn't say they're performance art. They're emotional outlets. I had this discussion with someone, asking why people were protesting outside Kavanaugh's house. My view was that this didn't make sense, as the guy who was trolling everyone was Thomas, and the guy who authored the opinion was Alito, so it didn't make sense to me to protest outside of Kavanaugh's house. The response I got was that it was emotional, not rational. And that made sense to me.
Is there some performance art going on? Yeah. But I think that protests like these are generally an emotional outpouring where people don't know how or where to take their energy. This is made worse by a democratic party that fundamentally does not know how to use their grassroots the way the GOP does. As a result, private groups fill the gap.
It's because, if you believe even some of the allegations against Kavanaugh, he has a history of disrespecting women's bodily autonomy in his personal life. Despite this, he was elevated to a position of power. He has used his power to roll back the amount of bodily autonomy for all women in America. Thomas and Alito may claim to oppose Roe on a matter of principle or constitutional overreach or whatever. You can credibly argue though that Kavanaugh just doesn't care about women's bodily autonomy.
Maybe it's also a feeling that Kavanaugh is the most unfit of four unfit judges. The most unqualfied. Tying with Thomas for whiniest. Thomas and Alito are the most ideological, Barrett possibly the most radical but not always insane. To me Thomas, Kavanaugh and Barrett do NOT belong on the Court, have never been qualified or fit for it. Gorsuch, while illegitimately on the court in a stolen seat (as were all of Trump appointees IMHO but Gorsuch most obviously), is at least qualified.
The problem is that Gorsuch is effectively a pro-corporatist shill--which is why he got the spot ITFP. That is an aspect of this whole thing that a lot of people miss--it isn't JUST about abortion. There is a whole slew of things that the GoP wishes to do away with that these people would be behind because of their ideological position as "originalists."
That's exactly correct! Gorsuch (who is from CO and I am familiar with his family) is at least an experienced jurist. But he is part of the ideology of "originalist" which aims to raze the social safety net and social contract of the country.
BTW, "originalist" -- which Scalia raised to hide behind when indulging his own activism, while bemoaning the 9th circuit "activists" -- is not accurate the way it is used. The SCOTUS Republicans are no more honest than congressional ones and statehouse ones, especially in justifying their dishonest and unconstitutional behaviors. "Originalist" is Scalia meant "my interpretation." Kind of like the Marbury v Madison court which made itself the final arbiter over much more than the Constitution gave it to decide.
That is why it was "originalist."
Even then an actually originalist reading of the Constitution isn't something that many contemporary Americans would actually like.
The contemporary US is largely a creation of the Civil War and it overturned a lot of the original concept of the US (because the original concept failed and failed pretty hard).
I hadn't connected that. Good point.