The Radical Democracy

They couldn't overcome the Republic's system of checks & balances, so now they have utilized the administrative state.

They have done very well in less than 2 years.

Spin, baby! Spin!

I have to use a famous movie quote, but look at me. Now look at you...

Since Joe Biden was sworn in the United States has been transformed from a Republic to a radical democracy.

How did this transformation occur? Was it done in the middle of the night? Did our constitution suddenly change? Trump should have been watching for what he was creating. If any change has occurred, it is related to his philosophy of "If there are no laws that say I can't, I can." At least the current administration is showing some decorum and not using the first corollary of the philosophy, which is, "Even if there are laws against it, do it anyways."  So far no wrong doing in this case has been proven, and according to you, et.al. the lack of absolute proof equals deniability of the charge. Hey, man, good for the goose and all.

After all the forces of the media and the left's front men finally disposed of Trump

What?!?!? Two and one half years after he was supposed to ride quietly into the night it is not just his spectre, cold and dim that we see, but we are bombarded on a daily basis by his very real person. "Get thee gone, foul demon of the Big Mac and Diet Coke!"

The guard rails that the Founders had put in place to prevent dictatorship are now gone.

See my earlier response and reprise it here. Trump was the one who brought the cancer of attempted autocracy to the White House, and yet you blame it on Biden. Once again, doing what you said you didn't do, and for all to see, no less. 

Whoever wins the Presidency now gets to do whatever they want at any time.

Whoops! When the hell did that happen? Oh! Reprise. Again.

If one wants to replace the voters or change the demographics of the country, one simply tells the poor of 150 nations that they are welcome and remove the restrictions that prevented migrants from walking in. 

Bout fuckin' time. We could really use some fresh blood in this society. Oh! That's right.Pesky constitution.... Reprise.

If one wants to bow to and forward a radical green energy agenda, one need only restrict the nation's energy production. 

Thank you, Covid and big oil. The former laughs at the havoc it created and the latter the profits that ensued. Reprise.

When one seeks to indoctrinate the young, one only needs to sic the DOJ on American parents.

Apparently, most of the parents in the US are happy with the way their children are being educated. You know, treat everybody the same, no favoritism for some. Reprise.

If one wants to find a warrant for a particular FBI operation, one need only find a particular judge.

Doesn't the law suck sometimes? No favoritism. Reprise.

American democracy as we knew it no longer functions. 

Unfortunately, you may be right there because a lot of Trumpers are trying to take over the whole process to control who gets elected. Link     Link   Reprise.

In the meantime the ruling regime will continue, as the famous French theorist might say, to use the law to counter the rule of law and the Constitution against the people. 

Really? Against the people as a whole? Or just law against bigots, fascists and white supremacists, et al.? Reprise.

How did this transformation occur? Was it done in the middle of the night?

In a manner of speaking, yes. It began in a few liberal colleges in the 60's, although they should be called progressive colleges to be more accurate. The "intelligentsia", like a slow spreading infection, supplanted truth and reality with neo-Marxist postmodernism. It spread to more and more colleges as time progressed. Then it began infecting public school systems. The goal is to remove the foundations on which this country was built. To untether citizens from any solid ground upon which to stand. If they can do that (and they have been) then they can make truth whatever they want it to be. 

It is why the latest Supreme Court Justice could get away with claiming "I'm not a biologist" as a legitimate answer to the question "What is a woman?" It would be difficult to overstate the importance of what occurred in that moment. A nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States cannot tell us something as simple and obvious as what a woman is yet was confirmed to a court that exists to consider laws too difficult or contentious or nuanced for lower courts. And this is just one example. 

Did our constitution suddenly change?

Thanks to the conservatives on the court, not as much as it could have without them. This is why the progressives want what they call liberal judges packing the court. They believe in a perversion called a "Living Constitution," which is simply the neo-Marxist postmodernists solution to getting rid of the Constitution. You see, with a "living Constitution" you can make it say whatever you need it to say in order to do what you want to do. The constitution becomes as untethered as everything else. It becomes meaningless. A prop that they can point to for legitimacy. 

I meant to say one and one half.  My bad.  

Trump was the one who brought the cancer of attempted autocracy to the White House, and yet you blame it on Biden. Once again, doing what you said you didn't do, and for all to see, no less. 

Get thee hither thou foul projectionist!!!

Thanks to the conservatives on the court, not as much as it could have without them. This is why the progressives want what they call liberal judges packing the court. They believe in a perversion called a "Living Constitution," which is simply the neo-Marxist postmodernists solution to getting rid of the Constitution. You see, with a "living Constitution" you can make it say whatever you need it to say in order to do what you want to do. The constitution becomes as untethered as everything else. It becomes meaningless. A prop that they can point to for legitimacy. 

How utterly untrue. The constitution was never designed to be a one-size fit all document for eternity. Nor was it meant to be a manipulated 'piece' used by certain fundamentalists churches and other citizen institutions to hold this nation back from its due!

I am utterly appalled when any Christian deems progress and help for the people God loves as something to not be desired. That is just pathetic "doctrine" being spread as a toxic into the bloodstream of this nation. Call a phsician, already!

Fundamentalist Christianity can yet be saved, if we 'clear' it out of our system soon enough!

Get thee hither thou foul projectionist!!!

And put on the next reel while you are about it.

They believe in a perversion called a "Living Constitution," which is simply the neo-Marxist postmodernists solution to getting rid of the Constitution. You see, with a "living Constitution" you can make it say whatever you need it to say in order to do what you want to do. The constitution becomes as untethered as everything else. It becomes meaningless. A prop that they can point to for legitimacy. 

Poppycock. Neoconservative post reactionary drivel designed for the conspiracy minded with a twist of mint. 

There is no they here.  It is I.  Progressive libertarianism says that keeping the faith means losing all of them.  Revealed religion is a lie of men created to hold a brother down so that someone else can take what he earns, without giving anything in return. ....

Wow, not sure who I was channeling there. The present court sees the CotUS through lenses cracked by Christianity and swayed by the Interpretation that the way to view the document is through some perceived original sense of the document as specifically written by the men who wrote it. Well, though they may have been special and progressively liberal by the standards of their times, the times,  they have changed. To interpret the CotUS in archaic terms is to limit the document to the past. Moreover, the current majority is too Christian in outlook and the light that they see is filtered through too many of men pretending to be God's Word. 

The cases they have decided show this penchant to the world. 

Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come.

Luke 17:1

I see. So, you don't deny the change then? And your justification for the change is freeing the country of Christianity? 

And MAGA conservatives are causing a great 'stumbling' as it interferes in the lives of those who are not fundamentalists, without wanting any equal portion of persecution of itself!

27 “Woe ~ Matthew.

"Full of hypocrisy and lawlessness."  MAGA has chosen a "lord" to rule over it and given the 'blessing' as it is to a dangerous and evil man who will not humble himself to God or admit to questioning which leads to the truth.

Drakkonis, do not quote to me about causing others to stumble. Clean up what is in the midst of you, for we have clearer eyes than you apparently. And so, we have not aligned ourselves with any wrong person simply to expedite the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven. "As if" anything men can do can move God to hasten the day of return. What hubris! God's time are appointed by times and spaces we know not! Find your 'lot' —and stand-down in it.

... just the fucking crusaders.

my attitude towards them is if you are faithful and it gives you peace, great. now please respect my peace and stfu about it when around me. I've made it this far without needing any type of pay per fellowship events. religious radicals can't whine about the types of people they don't think belong in polite social circles, when they belong to a fringe group that most people who live closer to our constitutional ideals think are conflicted in grasping the basic concepts of individual freedom.

Moreover the CoTUS is not a: doctrine, dogma, or belief system. Additionally, the great manipulators only wish to use the document as a 'relic' to the past! They have no intention or desire to add to the document any new liberties for 'today's'  world!

Ask conservatives this

Is this nation's constitution a flexible document, able to be changed through additions and deletions made to its whole?

The correct answer: Yes! And therein lies their insistence upon it being a static document: conservatives hold to keep out by force of their will anyone, any right, any marriage, any privacy, any abortion from happening with the expressed will of the republic as its "champion." Why, because until the aforementioned "items" are entered in the document conservatives will stand in the marketplace and shout: "NAY! NAY! NAY!

And fight like "h" to change or stop any law/s they disapprove of by 'throwin' a constitutional challenge at it.

And before you know it—another generation has passed and little to nothing has changed because of (spits) conservatives!

And your justification for the change is freeing the country of Christianity? 

I would settle for fundamentalist Christians just living their faith like pretty much every other religion here instead of attempting to impose their faith on the country while suppressing other religions. If you're not going to support the Muslim Coach getting out prayer rugs for the team before or after the game to pray to Alah for their sports success, then you shouldn't be defending the Christian coach who is leading his team in prayer either.

If you're not going to support the Muslim Coach getting out prayer rugs for the team before or after the game to pray to Allah for their sports success, then you shouldn't be defending the Christian coach who is leading his team in prayer either.

This can only happen if a group does not recognize religious freedom as equal in a republic, but tries to legislate hierarchical classes where one religion is above another. As if God can be competed against. That is, God has never asked for conservatives to go to war over religion. Why?

Because war, including political warfare, is the opposite of keeping peace with all men.

Romans 12:.¹⁸ If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.

So that the church will not be persecuted for the wrong reasons. That is, if the Church is persecuted it will be because it is doing good—not agreeing with causing harm and in return getting its "just desserts." ("They hated us without a cause- well, conservatives are found 'wanting' and guilty.)

My justification for change is the fact that there are methods contained within the CotUS for Change and that those rules were used Ten times to achieve ratification. We are lucky enough to get a plurality to agree on anything these days except blocking what the "other guy" wants to do. The CotUS isn't broken, but our two party system is, on both the state and national level. This representative democracy is not representative of the people at large, but it is representative of the worst of the fringes at the levers of power, leading back several decades and drawing sustenance from moneyed classes, hidden behind their lawsuits, cold hands on the throat of the nation, for the benefit of themselves and "their way" of doing things only, damn all others. 

My justification for change is the fact that there are methods contained within the CotUS for Change and that those rules were used Ten times to achieve ratification.

So, your justification is simply that a mechanism for it exists? Like having a wrench set and just going out and turn nuts simply because you have wrenches? That sort of leaves out the motive for change, doesn't it? Or is it simply anything at all as long as it isn't based on Christian principles? 

So, your justification is simply that a mechanism for it exists?

Not exactly what I was trying to say. That was justification for the CotUS being a living document. 

Personally, I would love to see all people treated the same. It should not matter if they are different by way of gender identity, how much money they make or don't,  or any of the other superficial "differences" that they may display. All People. This leaves room to make laws to protect the individuals liberties and at the same time respect different societies.  That said, if ones society wants to hang me or my best friends or some other group in some closet to protect them from the task of parenting and inconvenient questions,  well, they can just bugger off. 

George Orwell was quite a great observationalist. What is more is that he could synthesize these observations into a compelling narrative. 

One of his allegorical tales was about a group of farm animals who rose up and took over their farm. "Animal Farm" is, on first blush, a tale of the misguided purveyors of communism and socialism and the way that they lead to a hierarchical society.  A deeper reading concludes in the corollary of power corrupting.

These animals are obviously standins for people. In one part they have their constitution amended for them in the middle of the night.  To the line "All Animals are created equal," an addition has been made,",but some animals are more equal than others. " 

In effect, this is what the increasingly conservative and more religious court has been doing for several years and more blatantly since the super majority holds sway. They are not simply reinterpreting the CotUS, they are adding the" some animals are more equal than others" in the night by the suggestion that more of the constitutional protections which we have taken for granted are not actually rights,  but may be up to the individual states to guarantee, or not. 

I think. . . the beauty of our constitutional government is its simple wish for people to be good to one another. Aspirational, yes. Did this nation fall short from the inception-yes. Did it try to make up for it-yes again. However, there have always been naysayers and those who saw and continue to see this nation as not a diverse republic (though it certainly is from Abraham Lincoln to the Statue of Liberty with her plead to immigrants to come to throngs of people who come because we have 'built it' in this country).

A great American singer stated: "They coming to America!"

We wish for better things for this republic than a court liviing in the fading past and one that would turn its back on its fellow citizens when they lay before it pleading for what is equal, equitable, right, and wholesome for all.

(My "ode" to America!)

Not exactly what I was trying to say. That was justification for the CotUS being a living document.

Not sure how that is any different, but whatever. 

Personally, I would love to see all people treated the same.

Not me. I don't want pedophiles being legitimized. I don't want criminals being let off with a slap on the wrist. I don't want one standard for one skin color and a different one for another, simply because "it's cultural," which is the sort of acceptance the left insists on. 

More importantly, while if one doesn't think about it at all, that sounds like a nice sentiment but the moment one puts any thought into it the more contradictory to your argument and nonsensical it becomes. The only way all people can be treated the same is if all people adhere to the same principle. You know, like Christians go on about? About the only thing I figure you must mean is a society where everyone gets to do whatever they want and no one objects or judges.

Of course, you're going to say you don't mean that but then you have a serious problem. You now have to qualify what you mean with some sort of standard. Some sort of rule that everyone has to follow. Like, you can do whatever you want as long as you don't harm others. That's great. So, who decides what harms another? Maybe a white person opening an Asian restaurant? My silence being violence because one won't support someone else's cause? Standing up for what one thinks is right? Not photographing an event that goes against your moral compas? 

You see, what you don't seem to realize is that, while most people today will tell you that morality is relative, their actions say otherwise. You can say whatever you want but what actually matters is what people do, and what people do is tell everyone else they aren't doing what's right. They are constantly trying to hold everyone else to some standard they think applies to everyone. This is undeniable, yet people still insist morality is relative. They will tell you that it is while telling you you aren't doing what's right. The cognitive dissonance is astounding!

I don't even know why I'm bothering with this reply. The Bible tells us that people prefer the lie to the truth so I suppose I may as well explain all this to my doorknob. 

The only way all people can be treated the same is if all people adhere to the same principle.

That merely illustrates a lack of imagination. 

You know, like Christians go on about?

Right, Christians what everyone to adhere to Christian principles. That's not who this shit works. 

About the only thing I figure you must mean is a society where everyone gets to do whatever they want and no one objects or judges.

More lack of imagination. 

Not me. I don't want pedophiles being legitimized.

Did you read my comment? It does not appear that you did. From said comment:

This leaves room to make laws to protect the individuals liberties and at the same time respect different societies.

I went on to say:

...if ones society wants to hang me or my best friends or some other group in some closet to protect them from the task of parenting and inconvenient questions,  well, they can just bugger off. 

Which means treat everyone the same. If the issue is a conflict between what you are doing and personal freedoms of another, you cannot do that. In your example, you chose to say that pedophilia should not be legitimized. This is not an issue where one can be for or against pedophilia, because pedophilia is a crime against a minor who does not have the legal agency to speak for themselves.

So, who decides what harms another?

Common sense and a caring attitude. When I was growing up, the mantra was "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never harm me." While trite and not always correct, this seems like a good place to start.Then try The Golden Rule, You know, Do unto others as you would have done to you, once again with common sense.

I have nothing against Christianity. Just don't try to put your judgements on my person. I don't make you go hide in a room. You can come out on the street and proudly declare, "I am Christain!" so just what about you makes you any more special than a gay or a muslim or a transgender or a Pagan? 

You see, what you don't seem to realize is that, while most people today will tell you that morality is relative, their actions say otherwise. You can say whatever you want but what actually matters is what people do, and what people do is tell everyone else they aren't doing what's right. They are constantly trying to hold everyone else to some standard they think applies to everyone. This is undeniable, yet people still insist morality is relative. They will tell you that it is while telling you you aren't doing what's right. The cognitive dissonance is astounding!

On this one point, your argument seems contradictory.   If the actual morality we experience is relative (subjective) then one would expect that people will think that their own personal morality is correct (after all, why would they hold a morality that they find to be incorrect?).    Thus they will evaluate right vs. wrong against their morality and they will naturally find that others are 'wrong'.

Again, this is exactly what one would expect given a relative (subjective) morality.   Yet you deem this to be cognitive dissonance.   Why?

To be clearer, I personally hold that it was right for Liz Cheney to stand up against Trump's Big Lie.   To refuse to remain silent when Trump was leading the GoP (and to a degree the nation) down a path based on a foundation of profound lies.    I consider Cheney's willingness to compromise her position and seat rather than stay silent against a campaign of lies to be one of honor;   I consider her to be right in a moral sense.

Now, I can hold that position and truly believe that I am correct while recognizing that others have mores that cause them to think Cheney was morally wrong.   There is no cognitive dissonance here.   There is no conflict to recognizing that individuals will have differing relative (subjective) moralities while each believes theirs is correct.

"Checks and balances." Oh, so that is the MAGA version of obstruction and takeover from a position of failure to compromise. How 'rich'!

Where is the praise and support of Bush, the "Tea Party", MAGA insurrectionists, Trump or his cronies? Everything has pivoted to attack the other and never defend your party or your votes. Defend all the Republicans who have literally vowed to sunset Social Security. Defend the revolving door of hirings and firings of Trump who praised numerous people only to abandon them and about face on every issue since he was elected. Tearing down winners to prop up losers just because the inability to accept how wrong Republicans were tovote was for NIxon/Agnew, Bush/Cheney, McCain/Palin, Romney and whoever, Trump/Pence. Bashing someone making false equivalency over actually standing by the policies is just a ridiculous attempt to change the subject to avoid accountability the same way every Republican pretends Bush/Cheney and the "Tea Party" never happened.

Everything is not equal.

Not even close.

You seem to imply that Democrats are without fault and pure of heart.

We'll see what  the people think come delectation day

We'll see what  the people think come delectation day

what day is that?

The day we all begin to think each other tastes delectable....

delectation

Delectation: noun - pleasure and delight

Perhaps he means Easter Sunday when millions of Christians celebrate fertility with eggs and rabbits.

We still elect representatives to Congress so we are still a republic not a democracy.  Trump is still out there so he's not been disposed of.  All the stones in my yard are still sitting upright.  The "guard rails"
 have held, so far.  Presidents aren't even allowed to drive themselves to the 7-11.  Biden failed to get his build back better plan passed along with his voting rights legislation, and cancelling student debt so clearly the president cannot do everything he wants.  If we were an oppressive dictatorship migrants would be leaving, not arriving.  Buzzwords do not change facts Vic.  You need a break from the internet.  I worry about you.

I worry about you.

I'm worried as well.

About. . . "you"?

About future generations.

WHY?!!

I don't worry about certain people.  I pity them.  They're beyond redemption

I don't worry about certain people.

So I've gathered

I don't worry about certain people

Or the truth

They know who they are.

They know who they are.

We still elect representatives to Congress so we are still a republic not a democracy. 

Then why do politicians and the media - primarily left wing - insist upon calling the USA a democracy? Perhaps, they're just stupid?

Primarily left wing?

What were you saying about stupid?

Oh yes, they are fighting to save our democracy.....via a dictatorship!

Oh yes, they are fighting to save our democracy.....via a dictatorship!

Twelve years has done a lot to transform our nation into a banana republic.

Then why do politicians and the media - primarily left wing - insist upon calling the USA a democracy?

Not sure who you're listening to but everyone I know on the 'left' calls it a constitutional republic and/or a representative democracy.

Only a complete moron would try and claim the constitutional Republican we currently have is somehow some authoritarian dictatorship. Sure, we had a fairly close call on January 6th with a bunch of rabid conservatives trying to overturn the election results and install their Cheeto Benito as President, but our constitutional Republic survived that attack and is doing just fine. Is our constitutional Republic perfect? Of course not, it's got many flaws because it is made up of many fallible people, but its foundation remains strong regardless of what some right wing extremist whackos or conspiracy theory believing sovereign citizen thinks.

Not sure who you're listening to but everyone I know on the 'left' calls it a constitutional republic and/or a representative democracy.

Well, you can start with hosts and guests on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC as I do. After that, consider reading the NYT, Washington Post, and others - also, as I do.

Perhaps, they're just stupid?

Democrats believe their base is. 

Democrats believe their base is. 

That's why so many Blacks and Latinos/Hispanics have left them.

Or they are just using the readily available and completely correct shorthand that millions, possibly billions of others do every day. Your argument,  while technically correct,  is far from mainstream thought and popular usage. The United States is a democracy in popular parlance. We are not a direct democracy, but a representative democracy.  

From a Google search for democracy definition: 

We are not a direct democracy, but a representative democracy.  

This idiotic game has been going on for decades.   Those who claim the USA is not a democracy refuse to recognize —as you have noted— that democracy comes in two major initial forms:    direct and representative (or indirect ).

This is not complicated thus no benefit of the doubt is given to those who intentionally insert the adjective ' direct ' rather than the obvious adjective ' representative '.    Especially since there are no extant political systems in developed nations that are direct democracies — all are representative.   Worse still, the very definition of Republic (that they agree is an accurate label for our system of government) includes as part of its definition the notion of a representative democracy as its most common form :

Democracy :   A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives .

This is so stupid and so pointless.   Years ago I weighed in on a 'debate' where the liberal side was arguing that we are a Democracy (plays well with Democratic party) while the conservative side was arguing that we are a Republic (plays well with the Republican party).  I typically do not see that anymore, just the one-sided nonsense from the conservative side which stupidly claims we are not a democracy but a republic; as if those terms are mutually exclusive.

Oh! How about that?  Words do have meaning 

Presidents aren't even allowed to drive themselves to the 7-11

Or even to the Capital to try and stop the certification of a free and fair election...

Democracy, Republic, Autocracy, whatever, but sure as hell not a Meritocracy.  The Trump-lovers are establishing that. 

DOJ : trump under multiple criminal investigations.

When one seeks to indoctrinate the young, one only needs to sic the DOJ on American parents.

To the writer of these words, I wish s/he would go find out what being a real person is about and not just a self-interest, self-righteous, projectionist partisan. We're better than this or at least we should be.

This article exhibits true signs of delusion and paranoia.  Of course, it could just be an attempt to project harsh and bitter partisan propaganda.   Either way, nothing in this article contains even the slightest element of the truth.

This article exhibits true signs of delusion and paranoia. 

They said the same thing about Zelensky.

They said the same thing about Zelensky.

Are you fearful that "they" are out to get you?  Maybe those evil college professors?

Maybe those evil college professors?

The ones that have said nothing about the average price of tuition, fees, and room and board for an undergraduate degree increased 169%, between 1980 and 2020?  .

You mean like this professor and his associates?  fordschool.umich

You are definitely barking up the wrong tree.

I'm not barking up the right or wrong tree.

Nah, just lifting your leg at every opportunity. 

Marking territory.  

            "... the United States has been transformed from a Republic to a radical democracy."

LOL, leaving aside republican's latest flame, Hungary, that would make just about every other nation that is a democracy a radical socialist entity with the US sandwiched between those Commies Canada and Mexico.

Free cups of fear at Vic's Resto! Bring the family and get a free pot!

“…Free cups of fear…”

…and that is all they have.

Preying upon the ignorance of those that should embrace the message. Those so ready to disparage the truth are the very same who could most benefit from the policies put forward.

Symbolism does not do a thing except perpetuate a fantasy. 

Symbolism does not do a thing except perpetuate a fantasy. 

And conservatives so assbackwards with their lies about God, their twisted sense of the constitution as a document set in stone, and their outright cheating of their fellow countrymen to get ahead, that they fail to realize that a lack of advancing (because it is progress) is idiocy! You can't be the world's preeminent nation governing retro. Progressive nations, those that wish to advance, are not interested in the U.S.A. sorry ass past history. BTW, that's another discussion (for another day) that conservatives are big on delusion.

The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!...Frederick Bastiat

Your opening quote does indeed sound like what the Trump Presidency was looking to achieve.

Why all the constant barrage of police state, autocratic, blah-blah ad nauseum complaints that ring so untrue to most Americans? Biden hasn't tried to subvert the will of the voters. He is not trying to convince everybody to this day that he won an election that he did not. (OOOOHHH! That's because Biden won.) Yet your Trumpsplainers are trying to prestadigitate POOF their way out of yet another Jam that DJT has led them into. 

C'mon, Vic. Just because you say so does not mean that it is so. Evidence Of injustice? A legally obtained search warrant will not do. Persecution is the claim, but persecution is in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes, the person who claims persecution is just a liar and a thief. I which case it is called "Justice".

Evidence Of injustice? A legally obtained search warrant will not do.

I am sure you will pontificate the same when the political winds change, as they always do.

I am sure you will pontificate the same when the political winds change, as they always do.

It's of note how reactionaries act as if partisan politics should influence the administration of justice.

I am sure you will point at where your imagination dreamed up “should” in the text of the comment.

You are denying that neither the R’s or the D’s never use their political influence within the justice system.   

Noted.

 I am sure you will point at where your imagination dreamed up “should” in the text of the comment.

Your statement doesn't make any sense.  Try again.

You are denying that neither the R’s or the D’s never use their political influence within the justice system.

Do you often make up what you claim people say?

[deleted]

[deleted]

What really gets me is the political proselytizing of the chaotic divisive American "democracy" mess to the rest of the world.  Other nations smile and nod their heads in apparent (pretended?) approval as long as the American dollars cross their palms.