If there was ever a case for 'taking the L,' it's this. A day later, a day after SCOTUS unanimously ruled in Trump's favor, The Atlantic is still trying to find a way to call it a loss. Hey, we'll give them this, they are consistently whiny and willing to make fools of themselves to prove they're the most anti-Trump of all.
The Atlantic is what you get when a bunch of self-important people sit around pretending they're smarter than everyone else ...
"This case reveals originalism as practiced by the justices for the fraud it actually is: a framework for justifying the results that the jurists handpicked by the conservative legal movement wish to reach," @AdamSerwer writes: https://t.co/h4kqwcfBgJ
— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) March 5, 2024
Then again, they likely had this written ahead of time assuming it would be 6-3 in Trump's favor and didn't care enough to rewrite the piece.
Take a look at this:
From The Atlantic (if we have to read it, so do you):
It was always unlikely that the Supreme Court, with its right-wing majority, would uphold Colorado’s ruling throwing Donald Trump off the ballot merely because he tried to execute a coup after losing the 2020 election. As the unanimous per curiam ruling issued Monday overturning Colorado’s decision suggests, a Court made up of nine liberal justices may not have done so either.
That’s because sustaining the Fourteenth Amendment’s bar on insurrectionists holding office as written would put the justices in the difficult political position of looking like they were deciding an election. Such a thing could undermine popular support for the Court as an institution. It might prompt Congress to act to constrain the Court’s power. It could have led to a massive and potentially violent backlash from Trump supporters.
Recommended
Oh FFS.
Could they be any more annoying? Remember when these same people claimed if Hillary lost her supporters would just be sad? Yeah, that didn't happen.
tfw you had the article written and didn’t expect a 9-0 decision
— Carlos (@txiokatu) March 5, 2024
TFW you just can't take the L.
You wrote that before it ended up being 9-0, didn't you. LMAO clowns.
— Dan Goldwasser (@dgoldwas) March 5, 2024
If you were wondering how the press would treat a 9-0 SCOTUS decision, the answer is "pretend it wasn't." https://t.co/OIKYMcGtDY
— Noam Blum (@neontaster) March 5, 2024
This was a 9-0, excellently written opinion.
— Wilfred Reilly (@wil_da_beast630) March 5, 2024
They're just...lying. https://t.co/oFcoKspiqR
My working theory is that most of these takes were created as prewrites with the assumption that the court would go 6-3, and when it went 9-0 they … just published anyway.
— T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) March 5, 2024
Not going to waste a perfectly good prewrite and start all over again! https://t.co/juuvDBeFiu
Seeing a trend here.
"Nine hand-picked conservative judges!" https://t.co/5D2m1lmms1
— Aldous Huxley's Ghost™ (@AF632) March 5, 2024
HA HA HA HA HA
Because Ketanji Brown-Jackson is so conservative.
What a bunch of nobs.
======================================================================
Related:
Oh honey, NO! E. Jean Carroll Learns the Hard Way What Happens When You Ask a REALLY Stupid Question
======================================================================
Editor's Note: Hi there. I know it's been some time since we changed this up but changing it up now to see if any of you read this far. How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? Also, if you are reading this far please sign up for Twitchy VIP and help us continue bringing you the truth, especially the truth Biden and his Big Tech goons don't want us sharing.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member