26/ The article has WAY more than I posted. If you can, try to read it in full.
And please also read @Teri_Kanefield thread on this:
https://law-and-politics.online/@Teri_Kanefield/110571220240697077
Since everyone is going to get all unglued about this, let's look at it carefully. It tells us everything we knew all along but uses language that will distress people. In fact, if we compare it to Merrick Garland's statements about how (and why) the DOJ adopted it's strategy, the article simply repeats what Garland said, changing his language. Basically the article says that "instead of starting at the top, we started at the bottom." https://wapo.st/43NM1Cf 1/
If voter suppression, a stolen Supreme Court seat, losing Roe and a literal insurrection aren't persuasive enough to a Democratic leader to abandon the pretenses of bipartisanship it's hard to imagine that any additional substantive arguments matter much.
The power of status quo bias and the financial and institutional incentives to keep doing business as usual politics -- even as Republicans dig the foundation out from under democratic government -- is immense.
JRR Tolkien wrote in an English rooted in the Britain of 100 years ago. For that reason we're starting to lose touch with the language used in the book.
This is a thread of words and references that I have noticed in my current read-through, which I think might easily be misunderstood.
Just to recap, Clarence Thomas let a GOP megadonor take him on lavish trips, buy his mom's house and let her live there rent free, pay for his grandnephew to attend a private boarding school — all in secret until now.
How is he still on the Supreme Court?