We need a new approach to an ambitious political actor
Sorry you weren’t willing to put your name behind your comment, especially given the personal attack, but thanks for it anyway.
As for your understanding of the law and the facts, let’s just say that a number of United States Senators who were in the room felt misled by assurances you say were clearly meaningless. Perhaps you are just smarter than they are; perhaps the intent was, indeed, to mislead.
On the Kavanaugh photo, I personally thought that moment was an all-time low in the modern history of the Court (until the Dobbs opinion), and revealed a lack of judicial temperament that was, alone and by itself, disqualifying. (I also thought, and continue to think, that he was perjuring himself.) But I do know others saw the moment differently.
Thank you ! Sanity is a rare commodity in MAGA aftermath America.
Mr. Tofel needs to read today's house editorial by his esteemed former colleagues at the Wall Street Journal.
FTA: The reaction to the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health has been predictably vitriolic and often full of distortions. The Justices didn’t ban abortion; they said there is no constitutional right to abortion and left it to the states to decide. The majority also did not set up other rights to disappear; they explicitly said abortion is unique. ([https://www.wsj.com/articles/lie-senate-justice-gorsuch-kavanaugh-collins-manchin-aoc-meet-the-press-abortion-dobbs-roe-casey-ginsburg-11656277455]
Further, they address the charge that the justices "lied" in their confirmation hearings or in private meetings with senators.
Mr. Tofel, I fear, wants to lead a media war on the Court. But he should be careful, because once the dogs of war have been unleashed, there may be no stopping the destruction. The hyperventilating about Jan. 6 as a serious threat to democracy would look like child's play if this kind of rhetoric actually results in the assassination of a justice or member of their family. Mr. Tofel, you are playing with fire here. Do you seek to destroy an institution fundamental to ordered liberty simply because the politics of the nominating president and his majority party won the day? The pendulum swings both ways. Be careful what you wish for, sir.
This is a bit off-point from what you've written here, but I am curious what you think of the notion of court expansion (aka court packing), which is getting some traction, though not much news coverage. I have a visceral objection to it because it is deliberately designed to politicize the courts, but now that SCOTUS (and other courts) have so nakedly self-politicized, I'm wondering whether I need to rethink this.