So, NOW the WaPo regrets supporting Alito and Roberts

WTF...?!?!?! what exactly did they THINK was going to happen when these two right-wing nutjobs began to make their views felt via supreme court decisions...? did they really believe all that nonsense about appointing "NON-ACTIVIST," "STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST" judges...? what the hell is the matter with these people...? they were appointed PRECISELY because they WOULD be activist, acting swiftly and decisively to roll back years of judicial progress, and, in effect, overturning previous court decisions...

from today's wapo editorialist roundup...

WaPo ... labels the Supreme Court's most recent term "unsurprising and disappointing," and suggests that the editors regret supporting the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Court. "Most disappointing," they write, "are several actions by the new justices that seem inconsistent with what we, in supporting their confirmation, had hoped would be a respect for precedent and a modest conception of the judicial role." They add: "These were not the decisions of a restrained court committed to cautious, incremental change."

from the op-ed, a chronicle of the dive into the right side of the pool...

• [T]his term made clear that one set of four conservative umpires sees one strike zone; one set of four more-liberal justices sees another; and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy mostly, but not invariably, calls pitches the same way as the conservatives.

• "It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much," Justice Stephen G. Breyer said in announcing his dissent in the school desegregation case.

• [I]n the partial-birth abortion case, ... the new conservative majority essentially overruled a decision of seven years earlier and for the first time allowed an abortion restriction with no exception for maternal health.

• [In] the school case, ... the court reached out to take a pair of cases and then limited how local school systems could try to maintain integrated schools.

• The court junked a 96-year-old antitrust precedent and dramatically curtailed a three-year-old campaign finance ruling.

the wapo's conclusion...?

These were not the decisions of a restrained court committed to cautious, incremental change.

well, my dear friends at the washington post, YOU threw your weight behind the appointment of these bastards, and it's YOU that's been supporting the bastard and his criminal cronies who nominated them... when are YOU going to wake up, smell the coffee, and start working with the rest of us to throw those white house bastards OUT...? unfortunately, we're now stuck with the scotus bastards...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet