I'm sorry but 262 words is not a manifesto. A manifesto should be so long and rambling that its sheer size deters people from reading it. It should look like you need a briefcase full of ragged, yellowed typing paper to lug it around in and wave at people. It should be usable as a melee weapon in an emergency. 262 words isn't even the abstract to a respectable manifesto. ...
In 100 years this is going to be in a display at some museum to try to help whoever's around the future to understand the early 21st Century. ...
Photo
We can take some joy from knowing that when Elon Musk sees that video his mind will immediately go to all of the Russian mobsters and Saudi bone saw guys he is in hock to.
A glimpse into his future. Yeah, billion dollars or not they *can* get to you and when you’re no longer useful, they will. Sleep tight! ...
Everyone remotely near a position of power in the U.S. right now is drunk on It Can't Happen Here-ism while most of the rest of the world has recent enough experience with "It" Happening that they react differently. If they don't react to authoritarian power-grabs *successfully* they at least react to them decisively. They understand democracy as a thing that is fragile, that can disappear, and that requires a defense beyond telling citizens to vote. ...
Shane says:
I am willing to wager a substantial bit of money that most of my undergrads could have given a more intelligent response to this question. I don't think she can even name a single Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade.
Ed says:
How fucking hard is it to say "Boy, that Dred Scott decision sucked!"
Granted, she was asked to name a case she disagreed with and therefore couldn't whip out Bush v Gore or Brown v Board of Education, but for CHRIST'S SAKE. Not ONE? She can't even name another Supreme Court case that right-wingers hate?
Lawrence v Texas?
Hamdan v Rumsfeld?
Anything??
Kati says:
God, tomorrow is going to be better than my birthday. I CAN'T WAIT!
cerb says:
This isn't surprising considering she also can't name one magazine or newspaper that she has read over the past two years. To be honest I was just hoping for a slip of Brown v. Board of Education, but what can you do?
Brandon says:
The thing is, I think she still could have salvaged herself without naming a specific case, if she had at least given an indication of her judicial philosophy. I think a perfectly acceptable answer would have been, "Well, I don't want to single out a specific case, but I agree with John McCain that judges shouldn't legislate from the bench," or "Supreme Court justices should strictly interpret the constitution." The most appalling thing is that, aside from not naming a specific case, she doesn't appear to have ever given ANY thought to the role of the supreme court, to the point that she isn't even able to speak about the TYPES of decisions she opposes.