@JohnDMariana1@dador92@Rickisback_ON_X It's not hair splitting. A few 100 people going crazy (after the police lost control) and killing 0 people is not an insurrection even under a liberal interpretation of the word. And to say that Trump was part of it merely because he enjoyed it is an even bigger stretch still.
@sam_d_1995 Democrats want violent schizoid criminals out on the street to kill you and think Americans should be in prison for questioning elections lol
@BrennCookk@Rsun10l@greggnunziata When you also control the Senate, you don't need to compromise with the other side. That's just how the system is set up.
@Rsun10l@BrennCookk@greggnunziata That's absurd, I can't think of a single major case in the last 10 years in which Garland would've voted differently than Sotomayor. The difference was rhetorical, not substantive. Maybe on some criminal procedure he'd be more pro-prosecutor, but that's marginal.
@vanillaopinions@ChristySimm23 No it wouldn't be, the courts and institutions are what prop up fake normie liberalism. It would be incredibly dumb for you to torch them
@BetterScotus@varadmehta It wouldn't have required that if Democrats had one more justice. Therefore, itβs weird to present this as an absolute requirement like a law of physics.