She uh...she gets the irony, right?

And just like that, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett hands us the perfect description of two thirds of the Court: a bunch of partisan hacks.

Of course she insists that they're not a bunch of partisan hacks,
but isn't that exactly what a partisan hack would say?

No, really, the bill allows any rando to
sue someone who has an abortion. So
in many ways, Texas can go fuck itself.

In a speech at an event celebrating the thirtieth anniversary of the University of Louisville's McConnell Center--as in Mitch, gross-- Justice Coney Barrett explained that it was her goal to convince us that the Court "is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks." And look, I don't want to tell her how to persuade people, I mean, she is a lawyer, but maybe maybe it would help if she didn't try to make the case at a building named after Mitch McConnell, two weeks after siding with Texas's bullshit anti-abortion/bounty-hunter law. I mean, that's pretty goddamn hack.

Madison never saw automatic weapons
and armor-piercing rounds coming. They
 would have been like phasers to him. 

Barrett insists that she's an originalist which means that she supports the original intent and wording of the Constitution, but mostly that's just what conservatives say when they leap to the defense of the gun lobby or when they rob women of basic body autonomy. The Constitution is a two and a half century old document and is constantly interpreted to meet the needs of the time. It's why so many people have assault rifles. The Court decided that when James Madison wrote about a well organized militia in the age of breach loaders, he also meant that your racist uncle could stockpile an arsenal of assault rifles in his basement. It's nonsense, but here we are.

Marriage equality is another thing the
Right pretended was about originalsim,
but really they just don't like gay stuff.

But interpretation is also why you can marry whomever you want. Because things change. And they know that and they're not there to offer an originalist interpretation anyway. They're there to impose their worldview on the rest of us, exactly like Amy Coney Barrett says they're not. Despite her protestations--or at least refusal to to express any opinions during her hearings, she's been vocally anti-choice her entire career and that's why she's there. That and because Mitch McConnell stole the appointment from Obama.

It's like, a third hack. A third.

Either Scalia died too close to the 2016 election or Bader Ginsburg died to close to the 2020. Not both. But that was the brain-meltingly hypocritical case made by Mitch McConnell when he sat on Merrick Garland's nomination and then when he rushed through Coney Barrett's. And since Brett "I Like Beer" Kavanaugh is only there because the electoral college handed Donald Trump the presidency over the will of the voters, I'd argue that the right-wing tilt of the court is entirely due to partisan hacksmanship. 

So while it's maybe not fair to say that the Court is "a bunch of partisan hacks," after all, some of them are duly appointed and reasonable people. I think it's completely correct to say that it's stacked with partisan hacks. 

I mean, is there anything more partisan hack-y than a sitting
Supreme Court Justice giving a speech at an organization named for
the partisan hack you basically stole a seat on the bench for her?