And if you say nothing to the new legal terms for your credit card, you can still use it. Silence is consent to the changes.
What, are you advocating a "living constitution" now? Where do you get this liberal pseudo-legal technicality stuff?
No. Just no. Ain't nobody gonna fall for that!
I'm not saying it's firm ground, legally speaking. There is just enough pretext to be believable, though.
And when the only form of protest is to the very group you have tried to destroy, well... you aren't going to get very far.
The Congress was intended to be a co-equal branch of government. They don't have to accept anything the Supreme court says. They can even impeach Supreme Court justices and overturn their rulings.
They just never have the balls to do it.
Which is why this is a dangerous game. The only good outcome is to follow the established process without malice. And the GOP doesn't want that.
A "dangerous game" is letting another kook get on the court. They could overturn the 2nd or 1rst amendments if they take a mind to do so.
My friend, we have crossed the Rubicon of raw partisanship decades ago. (I vote 1992) and now we are in the twilight zone of brass knuckles political fighting. The Democrats have been doing it since at least Tip O'Neill, and they do not give a flying f*** about adhering to the spirit of the constitution or gentlemanly statesmanship.
They want to win so they can retain their offices of power and high social status. *WE* whimpered and wringed our hands about the horrors of implementing the "Nuclear Option", and Harry Reid immediately did it. No soul searching on his part. RAW POWER BABY!
They use it when they have it, we whine and whimper about how ungentlemanly it would be.
The term "cuckolds" has become common nowadays to describe our "representatives." It was earned.
