There are some very unpleasant “monsters” outside the theater doors.

“As someone pointed out, if SCOTUS opinions were to rule, then Plessy vs. Ferguson would still be considered ‘good law,’ and sacrosanct.”

Though I’m certainly happy that he won the confirmation. :>))

One thing that bothers me a great deal is this emphasis on the Vast Importance of following precedent. I don’t see how an outcome of a SCOTUS opinion becomes in any sense a part of the Constitution. As someone pointed out, if SCOTUS opinions rule, then Plessy vs. Ferguson would still be considered “good law,” and sacrosanct. Also, that conclusion absolutely justifies the use of the term “activist judges” which has gotten (because of its usual misuse) such a bad reputation.

This is one place (of the many many) where I disagree with Richard Epstein. It’s one thing to argue that it’s extremely difficult to repeal — even merely de facto — entrenched expectations resulting from perverse law; but it has been done (Exhibit A, the expunging of the slightest whiff of discrimination against persons with Negro ancestry; and, of course, others as well). It’s another thing entirely that it can’t and oughtn’t to be done since it upsets established expectations. Which, of course, it certainly does; unless of course the public in general has come to see that the status quo is wrong.

I agree that a solid base of good (i.e. proper) law is the sine qua non of a stable and ethical political system. That is why we have the Constitution, and that is the ultimate reason to stick by it strictly, stare decisis or no, until such time as it is changed through the amendment process according to the procedures it sets out. (Which procedures, of course, can also be changed via the Constitutional amendment process.)

And no, of course the C. isn’t perfect. But it’s a good foundation on which to construct a serviceable (and ethical) political system.

.

I was also less than impressed with S. Collins’ speech, by the time she was done with it.

.

Changing the subj, some of what the Progs write about the Federalist Society is pure c*** and not fit to use as fishwrap.

I explained in the post why neither Trump nor Kavanaugh can rightly be called “surprising.”

I can see securing Collins’s re-election becoming a cause celeb on the right if she runs in 2020.

I had started to give McConnell credit after holding the line on Garland, although I think that was less about giving the GOP candidate a chance to nominate because we all “knew” Hillary would win. I think it was about a middle finger to Obama for all his bs. That said, I started to give Mitch credit, but now I’m thinking I need to go back and review everything he’s done and see what I missed.

As for Lindsay Graham? He passed up the chance to be “The Maverick” now that McCain is gone. That was a position he seemed to be planning to take for years. Now he has “former friends on the other side of the aisle”.

I swear, I’m going to wake up and this will have all been a dream.

A bonus feature is that whereas prior to this debacle, Kavanaugh would have been likely to have been a mild-mannered Kennedy 2.0 if confirmed, he’s probably been radicalized by the experience – IOW, the Democrats have probably created the very monster they feared.