I’m Definitely Not Rooting for Anyone to Get Hurt

The confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett as the newest Supreme Court Justice—who has as much experience trying constitutional law cases I do playing in the NBA—has gotten people justifiably riled up. In an egregiously short time window, the chief Demon Turtle of the Senate has forced through a LIFETIME appointment more aggressively than Donald Trump forces himself on women. (ha ha! It’s funny because he’s a rapist!) However, even though this miscarriage of justice will literally echo for decades, it’s important that we don’t violate our very super duper important sense of common decency and wish totally justifiable ill will on these shitsacks walking hate crimes “people.” That’s why, today, I am making this declaration: I am definitely not wishing harm on these people.

I most certainly don’t want to see Ted Cruz get lice in his midlife crisis beard. I 100% don’t want to watch Mitt Romney choke during a speech so self-pleasuring it can only be seen on Cinemax After Dark. There is no world in which it would be endlessly funny to see Mitch McConnell get COVID only to have medical professionals refuse to help him because most people don’t die from it anyhow (that’s how it works right, you jowly fucknugget). I definitely don’t want to see any of that. 

No, I’m above wishing ill will on the people who would rather watch your family die in the streets without healthcare before they pay taxes on money their grandfathers made selling slaves in agriculture. Would it be absolutely hilarious to see Lindsey Graham, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas have heart attacks during their weekly backroom tuggy session? Yes, 100%. I’m only human. However, do I wish for those embodiments of mediocre, sniveling male privilege to die that way? Almost definitely not. Because I’m a good person who legally cannot say that I would like that to happen.

These are bad times. The people in charge of our government are bad people. However, we mustn’t stoop to their level. That is why I am imploring you to take this pledge with me: I will not wish harm or death upon the people responsible for stealing this Supreme Court seat, no matter how totally awesome it would be.

10 Questions That the Judiciary Committee Should Have Asked Amy Coney Barrett

ACB’s judiciary hearings: bad!! Here’s 10 questions that would have improved the process: 

  1. Are you mad at me? 
  2. Wait, you went to Rhodesia College before they changed the name to Zimbabwe?
  3. Do you think Pete Buttigieg is jealous that you’ve almost made it out of South Bend?
  4. How much of your opposition to Obamacare is just because it’s a total bitch to cite to National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius?
  5. How will YOU use the power of the judiciary to further the Republican Party’s descent into fascism? 
  6. Is this whole thing really just to get back at all those Cubs fans who said they’d take a Trump presidency if the Cubs won the World Series in 2016? 
  7. Which RBG opinion will you overturn first to honor her memory? 
  8. How did your Fed Soc membership at Notre Dame prepare you for a lifetime of a false sense of persecution as a member of a 6–3 conservative majority? 
  9. But actually, what would Trump have to do for you to not accept his nomination?
  10. Is the fact that so many people got infected at your nomination ceremony evidence that COVID-19 has an anti-Catholic bias?

Who We’re Nominating When We Pack the Everlasting Fuck Out Of The Supreme Court

Alright, fuckers. The endgame is here. Win this election, never see Donald Trump again, and pack the Court like it’s the last bowl you’re going to smoke before you go home for the summer. Get your padfolios ready, America—you might be joining the nation’s most powerful court. Here are the not-so-select few people we’re adding to the Supreme Court the fucking minute Biden is sworn in:

  • A Starbucks barista who Biden complimented on “the way her shirt fit”
  • 15 illegal immigrants
  • Hunter Biden
  • Your local DSA treasurer 🌹🌹🌹
  • Chief Justice Cardi B
  • The E Street Band
  • Your local ambulance chasing attorney with a kick-ass nickname like “The Justice Hammer”
  • My fifth grade teacher Ms. Leach she was nice 🙂
  • People who loudly shout “Tequila!!!” when the Tequila song plays
  • Rebecca Black
  • Our corporate sponsor, NBC Comcast
  • Jimmy Buffett’s Parrot. He has a parrot, right?
  • Still not Michael Avenatti, sorry!
  • Jeb!
  • Several Krassensteins
  • That guy who tried to chug an entire bottle of Patron in a parking garage and just vomited everywhere
  • Count Chocula
  • Diana Ross, along with no more than two other Supremes
  • The frontline healthcare hero from that Blink-182 album cover
  • Al Franken 😱😱😱
  • A bombastic drag queen whose stage name is Amy Bony Carrot
  • Paul George, so he can finally secure a victory on the court
  • Kett Bravanaugh
  • Every dog with over 50,000 Instagram followers
  • I think my roommate’s boyfriend is pretty sharp actually
  • The Migos member you don’t know
  • A cardboard cut-out of Antonin Scalia with an 18-inch dildo affixed to the mouth region
  • Damn Daniel
  • Kate McKinnon, roleplaying as RBG
  • Scooter Libby
  • Alec Baldwin (300 hours of court-ordered community service)
  • Flo-Rida
  • The weiners from Pod Save America, so they can go bother somebody else
  • Jack Daniels
  • Ur mom haha
  • Esteemed Eastern District of California judge Troy L. Nunley
  • Idris Elba, because what can’t that guy do!
  • My bodega guy
  • Balloon boy!!!!
  • 2003 Oakland Athletics’ All-Star Reliever Keith Foulke
  • Saquon, who suddenly has the time
  • Herman Cain’s ghost 👻👻👻
  • Joe Lieberman JK FUCK THAT GUY
  • Three Toddlers in a Trenchcoat
  • Susan Collins
  • Van Jones, so he gets off my dang TV
  • Claudia Conway
  • Flo, but not Jamie!
  • Taylor Swift, when she is in the woods
  • Merrick Garland
  • Anyone with LED lights in their bedroom

RIP to RBG

In a year full of loss, this one hits the hardest. 

I went to the Supreme Court on Friday night. Two things stuck out as we walked among the people assembled on the steps. 

The first is Ginsburg’s incredible legacy. Long before she was a Supreme Court justice, she (seemingly single-handedly) led the charge in the 1970s for sex equality. Nearly every landmark Supreme Court case about sex and the Equal Protection Clause was tied to Ginsburg. Then she went and authored her own crucial opinion once she was on the Court. 

You don’t need me to tell you that RBG was a trailblazer. But seeing the assembled mourners on Friday night was a powerful reminder of all the people whose lives she helped change for the better. The women who were able to have fulfilling professional careers that weren’t conceivable in the years before Ginsburg forged her own path. The lives that are richer in a society that has benefited because of the work RBG did to push us toward a more equal nation on the basis of the sex. She helped challenge and loosen the ingrained, constricting, and unfair gender roles and legal rules that confined men and women. Our lives at home and at work are unimaginably better for it. 

The second thing that hit me though was how losing RBG makes the law in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, feel ever more like a tenuous and arbitrary edifice. We have put so much pressure on nine old people in the Supreme Court to uphold and enforce our rights, and we feel crushed every time they fail to do so. We have let a Court of almost uniformly white men cloak itself in a veneer of objectivity only to get kicked in the stomach every time the Court helps the conservative movement swipe away another hard-fought right. Ginsburg’s passing sheds even more light on the artifice of an institution that stakes claims to neutral principles of law while allowing states and the federal government to concoct preposterous abortion restrictions or establish crosses on public land or kill Mexican teenagers playing on the wrong side of an invisible line

These feelings are mixed up with some frustrations about RBG. She was celebrated as a liberal icon—even when other justices outflanked her on the left. Her hiring practices weren’t as progressive as her legal opinions. And her meme-ification as the Notorious RBG had overtones of minstrelsy and appropriation

Perhaps most frustratingly, she could have retired earlier and let an Obama appointee continue down her path for a more liberal expansion of rights. Instead, we’re staring down the barrel of 30+ years of Amy Coney Barrett using RBG’s seat to build a “kingdom of God.” 

Ginsburg became known for her impassioned dissent on an increasingly conservative Court. We were already in for a lot more dissents like hers given Trump’s two nominations to the bench so far (one stolen, the other simply despicable). But now things could get very bad for a very long time. What lies ahead might force us to rethink our view of the Supreme Court as a fair institution that will protect our rights and values. In that case, we may need to shift our focus away from the federal courts and toward matching the conservative movement’s strides at the state level. 

RBG crafted a brilliant litigation strategy that operated within an overwhelmingly white and male power structure to make a push toward sex equality. But her legal victories—as crucial as they were—only took us so far toward concrete and lasting change. The real change comes from the sweat and blood of shifting hearts and minds as we fight for a more just society. Ginsburg could see the whole board when it came to social change, and she knew when and how the law fit into the bigger picture. 

It’s a shame that Ginsburg’s death immediately became a political battlefront rather than a testimony to her incredible achievements and lasting influence. But it’s heartening that we can celebrate her achievements and continue her legacy by fighting to protect the rights she fought for and to expand the vision of equality she articulated. So let’s do that. May her memory be a revolution.  

Textual Healing

Yesterday, the Supreme Court held that you cannot be fired for being gay or transgender.

It was a landmark victory for the LGBTQ community. And for many, the makeup of the 6–3 majority—with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Gorsuch (who also authored the majority opinion) joining the liberal faction—was as stunning as the end result. 

The decision has been hailed as a leftward shift by the majority-conservative Court. It has been criticized as too cramped a view of LGBTQ rights. And it sure doesn’t end the constant threat to trans lives

But besides the crucial importance of expanding Title VII’s anti-discrimination protections to gay and transgender employees, there’s another key aspect here: Neil Gorsuch (and Roberts) chose textualism over knee-jerk conservatism. 

Five years ago, Justice Kagan declared “we’re all textualists now.” Yesterday, Justice Gorsuch demonstrated that the Court (or at least a sizeable, non-credibly-accused-of-sexual-assault majority of the Court) would adhere to this interpretative tool, even if it led the justices in a direction they might not individually agree with. Or, as another former Maryland resident put it, “A man gotta have a code.”

As the late gabagool himself liked to say, “the text is the law.” When the text is clear, we’re done—legislative intent or real-world consequences be damned. For Gorsuch, the text of Title VII was clear, even if the logical progression of it could result in “massive social upheaval” (whatever that would look like). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans discrimination “on the basis of . . . sex.” Firing somebody for “traits or actions” that don’t conform to societal norms about their genetically assigned sex is discrimination on the basis of sex. That’s it. Now let’s all tap elbows and go home and crank through five episodes of Queer Eye and celebrate RBG as the progressive icon we want her to be but not the employer she actually is

What is heartening for me about Gorsuch’s opinion is its intellectual consistency. It means that liberal and progressive causes aren’t dead on arrival at the Supreme Court; they just need to have a persuasive textual hook. Granted, textualism has serious limits, may be based on a flawed and inherently conservative premise, and can lead to plenty of illiberal rulings in the future. And just because you self-satisfiedly tout yourself as a textualist while you steal Merrick Garland’s seat doesn’t mean you’ll have the testicular fortitude to adhere to that doctrine when the rubber meets the road. 

But, for the moment at least, Gorsuch has demonstrated something that the Court often appears to lack: a willingness to keep its legal philosophy consistent in the face of results that the justices themselves may not approve of.

We’ve been playing in the same court. Now it feels like maybe we’re all playing by the same set of rules.