Despite the Left’s best efforts, Brett Kavanaugh has been confirmed to the Supreme Court. They’ve moved past denial for the most part, but they’re definitely still stuck on a mix of anger, bargaining, and depression. Acceptance is just a pipe dream.

Case in point, this take from the Smartest Thinkers at Vox:

Sean Illing had a “conversation” with Harvard Law prof (!) Mark Tushnet. The whole thing’s a train wreck, but since we can’t post it in its entirety, here’s a particularly horrendous excerpt:

Sean Illing

I’m tempted to ask for examples of bad decisions, but let’s focus on the case for abolishing the Supreme Court, or at the very least for abolishing judicial review, which is the Court’s ability to decide whether a law by the government is constitutional.

Mark Tushnet

There are two components of the case for getting rid of judicial review. One is that, as a matter of basic democratic principle, the people ought to be able to consider policies and then vote on them without having the courts step in and say “no.” So from a democratic point of view, it’s hard to justify allowing the courts to single-handedly overrule popular will whenever they choose.

The second component is that judicial review may actually impair the public’s ability to engage in serious thinking about what the Constitution means, and what we want to do in light of what we think our Constitution says. In a way, the Supreme Court simply takes on this conversation for itself, and leaves the citizenry as bystanders.

If Illing or Vox had any brains, they’d’ve shut that “conversation” down right then and there. Unreal.

Well, it turns out that Vox has actually got some pretty stiff competition.

Ladies and gentlemen, Slate:

Christopher John Sprigman concludes:

The reality is that the court has never been a progressive institution. And it’s not going to be one for the foreseeable future. In particular, the courts aren’t going to save us from the GOP’s voter suppression efforts—it is, in the end, voters who are going to have to protect the right to vote. And in states where voter suppression efforts go hand in hand with popular Republican legislative majorities (and sometimes unpopular but gerrymandered legislative majorities), voters will not be willing or able to turn the tide. The only way to address that will be for the Department of Justice to get back into the business of enforcing voting rights, and that will require new legislation and Democratic control of the executive branch. Again, the courts aren’t going to help. Nor are the courts up to the job of protecting us from a determined turn by the GOP—or, for that matter, by some future left-wing demagogue—toward authoritarianism. The surest protection against undemocratic politics is a vibrant culture of democratic politics.

Ultimately, the left would be well-advised to get over its unrequited crush on courts and judicial review, as well as the delusion that our old, terse Constitution has much to say about modern problems. It does not, and in any event, too much constitutionalism, like too much democracy, can be dangerous to self-governance and can even destroy a society. The surest and most durable route to progressive change is through the ballot box, and not the courthouse doors.

The question, then, becomes how to shrink the power of courts. There are many valid ways to accomplish that—even without amending the Constitution itself.

Yeah, eff that old, terse Constitution and its stupid Bill of Rights and stuff.

They won’t say anything. They’ll just slowly shrink and transform into corncobs.

The sorest and loser-iest.

Oh, don’t worry. We will.