They are shocked, shocked!

Five senate Democrats are shocked and appalled that Republicans' readings of the constitution reflect their politics and sometimes favor the interests of Republican constituencies or donors.

And they warn darkly that, if the Supremes don't rule as they desire on a Second Amendment case now before them, the already wavering trust of the American people in the judicial integrity of the court will be further compromised and the public may demand it be restructured to reduce the influence of politics.

They threaten court-packing, in other words.

The opening salvo, the first of many to come, in a barrage of propaganda aiming to soften up public opinion and prepare it for just such a move, that many Democrats, including me, think the Dems ought to do if they can, as soon as they can?

Maybe.

And I suppose it was inevitable that such Dem propaganda would have to pretend, as Republican propaganda about interpretation of the constitution always does, that there is a single reading, or a narrow range of readings, of the constitution that any honest and objective student of the thing would arrive at, sufficient to decide all or damned near all cases or controversies, and especially cases in which the political, social, cultural, legal, or economic stakes are greatest.

But that is a fantasy suitable for children, like Santa Claus and the Elf on the Shelf.

The truth, entirely contrary to that notion, is that the constitution is so riddled with obscurity, generality, and imprecision of language and so undermined by glaring lacunae that nothing at all can get to readings sufficiently lucid and apposite to decide controversies but the political, moral, religious, or other personal and somehow relevant beliefs, commitments, or even interests of the reader.

Even the question whether and how far judges must feel themselves bound by what they admit to be, as there will be in many but by no means all cases, the evident meaning of some key passage of the thing, can be decided on no other basis than these.

And it is also a fantasy that people do not understand all that very well, and that just that is why the parties' choices of not only judicial philosophies or constitutional interpretations but of judges are entirely and necessarily a function of the political, moral, religious, or other somehow relevant beliefs, commitments, or interests of their members, constituencies, or donors.

But the broad masses include the massively stupid and naive.

And so the multiple and manifold lines of propaganda brought forth for this fight must include threads variously addressed to diverse elements of the constituencies involved.

To Save a Bad Gun Law, Democratic Senators Threaten the Supreme Court

It is a bad gun law, by the way.

Update 081819.

It's also possible this will, and may have been intended to, warn off the Supremes from overturning Roe or anything significantly related to it.

So do it, already!

Democratic candidates talk of court-packing

But studiously avoid the word, doubtless a Republican invention back when FDR was considering adding judges to get past the relentless hostility to his agenda from the Lochner conservatism of the court early in his presidency.

This is hilarious.

So many people persist in believing in unicorns, angels, fairies, the Easter Bunny, Santa, and on and on . . . .

Most people, however, want the high court to be taken out of politics, and for politics to be taken out of the court.

Two serial sex criminals chat at the end of a bar

Donald Trump chatting with Sean Hannity, Cohen's only other client and for whom Cohen also paid off a female accuser, tut-tutting about Ms. Ford's credibility.

Trump Asks Sean Hannity Why Christine Ford Didn't Tell The FBI About Kavanaugh "36 Years Ago"

Ahead of a hearing on Monday to examine the sexual misconduct allegation against Brett Kavanaugh (which he denies), his accuser is requesting an FBI investigation into the matter before she testifies. 

On Thursday, joining a number of Republican senators who have dismissed the request, President Trump asked Sean Hannity why Christine Ford didn't "call the FBI 36 years ago," right after she alleges the assault occurred.

"You could say why didn't someone call the FBI 36 years ago?" Trump said in a live interview with Hannity before a rally in Las Vegas. 

"You can also say, when did this all happen? What is going on?" 

The president lamented the effects of the allegation on Kavanaugh's nomination, saying, "I think it’s a very sad situation, he’s an outstanding person. … To see what’s going on is just very, very sad."

Every time he opens his mouth this president becomes even more disgusting and contemptible.

"I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents,” Trump said on Twitter Friday morning.

"The radical left lawyers want the FBI to get involved NOW. Why didn't someone call the FBI 36 years ago?" he added in a third tweet on the issue.

In an earlier post, Trump lauded Kavanaugh as "a fine man, with an impeccable reputation, who is under assault by radical left wing politicians who don’t want to know the answers."

As an FBI retiree said on MSNBC the other day, there is not a trial and will be none, after all this time.

Brett Kavanaugh is not on trial and the FBI investigation into him and accusations against him was not and would not be a criminal investigation but an investigation into suitability for very high office.

Accusations against him don't need to be proved at all, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.

He will be an unsuitable candidate if he is under a cloud, since the office requires a sterling and unsullied reputation.

And since his denials are in fact less credible than her accusation, he's already under a cloud.

An investigation would also take a quick look at Ms. Ford to see if anything leaps out that makes her accusations less credible.

Given what we know, that seems unlikely.

Kavanaugh will be confirmed, and that will be the second time the Republicans have put a man under a cloud for sex matters onto the court, Clarence Thomas - who vehemently played the race card during the controversy - having been the first.

And then the Democrats and all who are under the protection of their progressive achievements will be screwed, all the more so as more than half of them would join Republican protests at any suggestion of court packing, such as moves toward removal of the legislative cap on the size of the court at 9 justices.

Actually, they should pack the Supreme Court. At least.

Tucker Carlson warns of Democratic coup

Tucker Carlson found an "author" who says Democrats should fight dirty in politics. 

Well, duh.

And Tucker proceeded to predict that Democrats would split California into seven states in order to take back the Senate, create some kind of multiple representative House districts that would pack the House, pack the courts, and of course...

LET "ILLEGALS" VOTE!

Not illegal, not unconstitutional, just hardball.

You know, like what Republicans have been doing for decades.

Let's put a finger in their eye, for a change, dammit.

Court packing.

Democrats need to be less like the only responsible adults in the room and more like the totally reckless and irresponsible nutballs we are trying to resist.

Less like polite "indoor voice" Quaker pacifists getting the shit kicked out of them by the enraged, screaming ninjas.

How do democracies perish?

When responsible adults play by the rules and let power be seized by their assassins.