Dismissing questions as absurd or flippant isn't particularly helpful.

Neither is presenting half-baked questions based on an obviously fallacious and repetitively debunked narrative (in this case that the wrr on trr is a serious issue that calls for exceptional responses).

Your thesis that popular interest in a particular form of law would frictionlessly result in that form

Heavens, no. The point of having a strong, independent judiciary is precisely to prevent certain currents in public thought from finding easy expression in the law. Including, but not limited to, those currents of public thought embodied in the regime of torture, kidnapping and concentration camps that Bush started down officialised, and which Obama has not even attempted to roll back.

If you weren't so busy assigning evil motives to Obama, it might occur to you that there was at least a little value in having a law professor as president instead of a jerkoff black sheep cheerleader drunk.

Why, precisely, when they follow substantially the same policy playbook?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.