US Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade

"Pro-Life Spiderman" climbed a Californian skyscraper this morning to 'raise' awareness

Quite something!

I supported Bernie in that primary; IIRC there were media reports of very strange goings on in the Democratic primary process, to tilt the result in favor of DNC figurehead Hillary, and away from Sanders who, technically is not a Democrat whatsoever but an Independent who frequently canvasses with Democrats in the Senate.

I agree with you this is the wrong thing to focus on or re-litigate for the progressive left. They frankly overstate, in many states for example, whether our votes meant anything at all. You could support an inanimate carbon rod, and all your friends could, but if it's not the GOP candidate, it's not getting elected to a South Carolina state level appointment. There are plenty of other post-mortems of the 2016 election, but I think it's fair to say that calling out 'bernistas' etc. as the reason why Hillary couldn't win without campaigning in several important battleground states, is missing a lot of key points.

Those are people going through the Anger stage. I get it. I even recall writing a post in the 2016 election thread, or Scalia's death thread, etc. where I had went and listed out every Justice in the past century, chronologged their tenures on the bench, and how that Hillary becoming POTUS would mean that, for the first time in more than a generation, there would be a majority of members on the Court who were not picked by Republicans, for a change. As I stated at the time, it would probably be a whole other generation before another such opportunity occured. And then they got not 2, but 3 seats filled. We know how it happened, most of us, because we have seen it 'happening' for years like a really slow car wreck or one of those bullet time scenes in an X-men movie. They're barking up the whole ass wrong tree there.

The Obamas call for broad political activation and protests nationwide

https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1521569658960240642?s=20&t=_E8lZ4nB9pA1dMAMkFg_eA

If that's your issue, you'll have to PM me I can't PM you. I tried. It doesn't seem like the topic really. That's the last thing I'll say about your flummox here then.

It's like a Gen Z thing or something.

Kinda like saying "Classic Obamas," on brand, etc.

Trump surrogates trying to spin this like it's Special Counsel worthy. It's not, they know it, and they even caveat their statements

“What about this marshal invrestigation? Having covered the high court for a few years I can say the Supreme Court marshal investigating you isn’t the sentence that strikes fear into the hearts of men and women,” Kelly said.

“CBS is reporting there may be an FBI investigation into who leaked this. What do you think happens from here? Who do you think actually takes the helm?” Kelly asked.

“The Chief (Justice Roberts) would’ve had the option, perhaps he still will, to appoint a council. A special council. Not in the classical criminal sense but the court can appoint a counsel and bring in a former U.S. attorney or someone with a law background,” Barr said.

“I’m sure he would get the support he needed from the FBI or any other law enforcement agency,” Barr added.

Kelly asked, “What’s the confidence that they can get to the bottom of who leaked it?”

“I think they may need a grand jury to do that, which would mean a criminal case,” Barr said bluntly.

“Wow! Why?” Kelly asked.

“To compel the truth,” Barr responded.

“People would lie to the marshal and maybe not to a prosecutor?” Kelly laughed.

“Perhaps,” Barr said.

“Is this a crime?” Kelly later asked.

“It could be obstructing the administration of justice. The due process of justice,” Barr said.

“That’s a stretch though? No?” Kelly asked.

“Obstruction means you’re attempting to influence through some kind of wrongdoing. I don’t think it’s a stretch, ” Barr concluded.

"Grand Juries" don't 'compel the truth,' a Grand Jury is the first stage of criminal indictment, where a Prosecutor presents their brief to a grand jury, who is instructed to assume that, everything the Prosecutor tells them is 100% true and to consider if a crime has been committed. Only if a Grand Jury passes along an indictment does the defendant get to represent themselves, or challenge the findings.

And his Remarks on a Special Counsel but not in the classic criminal sense, is meaningless, but I'm sure it sounded great on rush-hour talk radio. Special Counsel would be called to investigate high crimes of the white house, because the run the FBI and the DOJ; this investigation they want is investigating the possibility of a crime happening at the supreme court, an entirely separate, 3rd branch of government, which does not hold control over federal investigators in the executive branch.

Concerted efforts in the zeitgeist right now, to accuse Democrats of a crime when we don't even have a perp or a motive.