If you’re unfamiliar with Jay Willis’ work, you’ve been missing out. The GQ writer and “aspiring lawyer” has some thoughts regarding Pete Buttigieg’s plans for the Supreme Court:
Pete Buttigieg wants to overhaul the Supreme Court by launching a commission to depoliticize it & expanding the number of justices, with five affiliated with Democrats, five affiliated with Republicans, and five apolitical justices chosen by the first 10. https://t.co/WmZBkcfrpq
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 3, 2019
And for some reason, he thought it would be a good idea to share them with the rest of the class:
If you want to de-politicize the Supreme Court, asking ten partisan justices to *literally vote on their remaining five potential colleagues* seems like a bad way of going about it! https://t.co/OQF9f3yffp
— Jay Willis (@jaywillis) June 3, 2019
Also, this entire thing is just a diabolical, nightmarish constitutional law issue-spotter final exam
— Jay Willis (@jaywillis) June 3, 2019
One of the biggest tactical advantages Republicans hold over Democrats right now is that Democrats want neutral courts, and Republicans want explicitly conservative and/or Republican ones. Dems don’t realize the fight isn’t for fairness—it’s for power.
— Jay Willis (@jaywillis) June 3, 2019
Bless his heart. No, really. Bless it:
DEMOCRATS: merrick garland is a marginally left-of-center jurist with unimpeachable credentials, an excellent compromise at this time
MCCONNELL: lol
— Jay Willis (@jaywillis) June 3, 2019
DEMOCRATS: the Supreme Court’s integrity must not be compromised at this critical juncture in our history
TRUMP: here’s a literal GOP operative, he’s your new 9th justice, also the sexual assault allegations only make us more determined to confirm him over your objections
— Jay Willis (@jaywillis) June 3, 2019
Recommended
There is no such thing as an objectively correct and neutral application of a 250-year-old document riddled with vagaries, inconsistencies, and anachronisms. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to justify their political/policy agenda, and hoping you won’t notice.
— Jay Willis (@jaywillis) June 3, 2019
Was Jay hoping we wouldn’t notice that he’s completely full of it?
Lolwut https://t.co/GK3tN5ou0Z
— Senate Popular VotEEE (@EEElverhoy) June 3, 2019
— Bailey melvin (@bailey_melvin) June 3, 2019
"Democrats want neutral courts" Lol.
— Qmprt (@qmprt) June 3, 2019
— Erin (@xxnezumi) June 3, 2019
That's pretty funny
— Matthew Harp (@MatthewHarp2) June 3, 2019
Hilarious take.
— Hellion 2172 (@hellion2172) June 3, 2019
Jay's dedication to intellectual dishonesty is remarkable.
— アーケットシスターズ (@ArquetteSisters) June 3, 2019
— Bent Wookie (@therallyking) June 3, 2019
Neutral? ????
— Ginny (@ginkates) June 3, 2019
been a while since a tweet has actually made me lol in my office, but here we are
— Reginald Harper (@harperreginald1) June 3, 2019
Imagine actually believing this is true. https://t.co/mZbRWFj6Zc
— Lyndsey Fifield (@lyndseyfifield) June 3, 2019
How the hell did you write this with a straight face?
— Loren (@LorenSethC) June 3, 2019
This tweet☝️in gif form pic.twitter.com/orKlF5fAjh
— Farbrook (@dutchindian) June 3, 2019
You must be high.
— Peasant H (@c_gt1982) June 3, 2019
Are you on crack???
— EducatëdHillbilly™ (@RobProvince) June 3, 2019
I want this guys drug dealer…… https://t.co/TtpTYArFKa
— EducatëdHillbilly™ (@RobProvince) June 3, 2019
Kindly pass over whatever you’re smoking, because it must be….. pic.twitter.com/rchwS6D04c
— Paul M Winters (@RealPaulWinters) June 3, 2019
— Dodd (@Amuk3) June 3, 2019
Not only is the claim that Dems want neutral courts quite possibly, on its face, the most laughably false thing that's ever been said, Conservative courts ARE neutral courts. They side with the Constitution.
Dems do not want courts that side with COTUS. Not now, not ever. https://t.co/6YIIAs9Lpb
— Eric Spencer (@JustEric) June 3, 2019
It’s OK, Jay. At least you tried.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member