Two leftist professors urge Porridgebrain to simply defy Supreme Court decisions Dems don't like

On Wednesday two shit-head communist professors urged Porridgebrain to defy any decision of the Supreme Court that he or the Dems don't like.  The two profs called justices they didn't like "MAGA justices" and claimed their interpretation of the Constitution was "gravely mistaken".

Mark Tushnet (Hahvahd) and Aaron Belkin, who teaches political science at San Francisco State, wrote after biden called the SC "not a normal court" after it ruled against his edicts in two high-profile cases.

"We urge President Biden to restrain MAGA justices immediately by announcing that if they issue rulings that [we don't like, so we claim they're] based on gravely mistaken interpretations of the Constitution that undermine our most fundamental commitments, your Administration will be guided by its own constitutional interpretations," they wrote.

Note that the criterion the two shitheads proposed was NOT "that undermine the Constitution," but "that undermine our most fundamental commitments."  Wait..."commitments"?   To what, and made by whom?  Sounds very much like "undermining what our party wants to do."

I'd put those two rat-bastards on trial in a heartbeat.

The pair noted that for years they'd urged that the number of Supreme Court justices be expanded (i.e. to pack the court with liberals), claiming that was "a necessary strategy for restoring democracy," but then added that "the threat that MAGA justices pose is so extreme that reforms that do not require congressional approval are needed now."

"Reforms that do not require congressional approval" mean unilateral decrees, like a dictatorship. They emphasized that biden should "take immediate action to limit the damage."

The two invented a principle they call "popular constitutionalism," which they said holds "that courts do not exercise exclusive authority over constitutional meaning"--the opposite of what we've all understood the Constitution to provide.  So if the regime didn't like a decision by the court, the two said Porridgebrain could simply explain why that decision was "egregiously wrong," and then offer an alternative constitutional interpretation, particular if the ruling poses a "grave threat."

Wait...who decides if a ruling by the court poses a "grave threat"?  What are the criteria for claiming an SC decision is "egregiously wrong"?  Simple, peasant: the dictator decides.  Well, his party or his handlers, but voters wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

"In this particular historical moment, MAGA justices pose a grave threat to our most fundamental commitments because they rule consistently to undermine democracy and to curtail fundamental rights, and because many of their rulings are based on misleading and untrue claims," they wrote.

Wow, "misleading and untrue claims," y'say?  I'd love to cross-examine these bastards and get them to pinpoint those allegations.

If these two sons of whores aren't stopped--cold--it's the end of the Constitution as the Founders wrote it.

Law prof Jonathan Turley rebutted: "What is most striking about these professors is how they claim they're defenders of democracy, yet urge the use of unilateral executive authority to defy the court. They remain the privileged elite of academia, declaring their values as transcending both constitutional and democratic processes."

"They want Biden to declare himself the final arbiter of what the Constitution means and to exercise unilateral executive power without congressional approval.  He would become a government unto himself."

A moronic supporter of the two communists tweeted "The court has no enforcement authority.  Its authority is based on people accepting the court’s legitimacy. But it can’t do whatever the hell it wants, however it wants, and expect deference. [The preznit] should brush off the court’s junta-like attempts to rule by edict."

The sheer hypocrisy by this dipshit is stunning: If the SC makes a ruling the Left doesn't like, he bleats that it's "an attempt to rule by edict."  But if duh preznit unilaterally decides he don' like dat ruling, and defies it, dat's NOT "an attempt to rule by edict."  See?

If that "reasoning" strikes you as less than convincing, congratulations.  It means you're not brain-dead like this dipshit and the two professors who came up with this crap.

Source.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/law-professors-urge-biden-defy-mistaken-rulings-maga-supreme-court-justices