Timothy Birdnow

Seems we have touched a nerve.

Conehead is upset with being called a swing vote and of being flighty.

She swings like an old west saloon door. And her positions are all over the map; I would call that "flighty".

If you are frequently agreeing with the activist leftists on the court, if you find common ground wit "Leroy" Brown Jackson, then you are at best flighty and possibly downright stupid.

Conehead sided with the Left side on deportations. She sided with them over the Trump tariffs. She allowed border agents under Biden to cut through the wire fence put up by Texas to slow illegal aliens from invading the Lone Star State. She sided with the Libs in a case where the Biden EPA issued draconian air-pollution regulations. (This was the Orwellian-named "good neighbor provision" which would allow Democrat controlled states to set emissions standards in Republican states "downwind" of them.) In that case Barrett bitterly disagreed with the majority "What is the theoretical justification for using tradition that way?” she asked. Uh, ever heard of PRECEDENT you sill woman?

There have been multiple other examples of Barrett's shallow and people-pleasing judicial approach, but you get the point. She is a waffler, a great one, someone who should be working in a cheap morning diner.

But she doesn't want to be thought of that way.

It's odd how often we get Republican appointed Justices who turn their backs on the date who brung 'em and kiss media and Democrat fanny. David Souter was the king, of course, but there have been plenty of others (like Sandra Day O'Connor). This woman is just one more in a long line of Republican appointees who now want to make a legacy for herself by playing both sides against the middle, by triangulating, to get kudos from the press.

But in the end the person who strides the fence will wind up being impaled by the pickets. I think Conehead is realizing that now and isn't at all happy about the fact America has notices.

Hide Comments | Add Comment