The Supreme Court's disturbing indifference to unconstitutionality and illegality

[NWRatCon]

Over a series of "star chamber" orders during the Trump regime's existence, the Supreme Court has consistently sided with allowing blatant illegality and unconstitutional actions of Trump to continue. This is not normal. Indeed, it is unprecedented - in every sense of the word.

Until the advent of Trump, emergency requests to the Supreme Court from the government were extremely rare. Over the entire 16 years of the Bush and Obama administrations, eight were filed and only four granted. During Trump's first term alone, 41 were filed and 28 granted. Child's play:

"Since Trump returned to office on January 20, the court has acted in 23 cases on an emergency basis involving his policies, siding with him fully or partially 21 times, with one case declared moot.
In doing so, the court has expanded how it uses its emergency power, following at least six different legal paths to side with Trump, usually in decisions powered by the conservative justices, a Reuters analysis has found."

US Supreme Court expands its 'emergency' docket - and Trump's power too (Reuters, Oct 2, 2025)​

This is appalling. "These decisions have let Trump's aggressive and sometimes novel uses of executive authority proceed largely unhindered before their legality is fully determined, increasing his power in ways that critics have said undermines Congress and the various federal judges who have ruled against him." In short, the "conservative" majority is letting him "move fast and break things" - in this case, norms, the law, and the Constitution.

This is far from normal. A truly conservative Court (hence the "scare quotes") would preserve the status quo until an informed decision is reached. This Court is not doing so. "The actions by the justices have expanded the emergency docket's "effective power without the court formally acknowledging it," Bradley University law professor Taraleigh Davis said.

This expansion in turn boosts Trump's power, Davis added, because if administration officials know they are "likely to receive a stay on the emergency docket they can implement controversial policies immediately and fight the legal battle with the policy already in effect."

The court in emergency decisions has let Trump ban transgender people from the military, carry out mass firings of federal employees, remove agency officials despite statutory job protections and deport migrants to countries where they have no ties like South Sudan, to name a few, while litigation continues in lower courts. The practical effects of some of these decisions could be hard to unwind even if plaintiffs eventually win on the legal merits.

"These aren't decisions that somehow maintain the status quo. If they give the president the benefit of the doubt, that might mean that your husband ends up in an El Salvador prison ... that means your research doesn't get funded," Tulane University constitutional law professor Stephen Griffin said." It can legitimately be argued that some of these actions have led directly to the deaths of thousands of people already - with the stalling and destruction of USAID provisions to starving, and ill people - with tens or hundreds of thousands to follow.

The Roberts Court is acting immorally, unethically, and, in reality, unconstitutionally. They are as guilty as the regime itself for its depravities.

 

[aociswundumho]

the Supreme Court has consistently sided with allowing blatant illegality and unconstitutional actions of Trump to continue. This is not normal. Indeed, it is unprecedented - in every sense of the word.

You remind me of what people say about Robert Reich: "Good writer. Too bad he gets everything wrong."

The switch in time that saved nine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[AZRWinger]

Not a word about the root cause of the uptick in SCOTUS emergency actions. Democrats in the latest phase of lawfare against have eschewed Congress in favor of a tsunami of forum shopped law suits opposing every action of the Bad Orange Man. The DOJ has no choice to defend against Democrats latest ploy to undermine the Republic by petitioning the SCOTUS for emergency relief.

 

[NWRatCon]

Ignorance is truly bliss. Two of the least cognizant and most partisan posters on the board provide... absolutely nothing. Huge shock. Empty paper bags provide more substance.

 

[Mycroft]

Over a series of "star chamber" orders during the Trump regime's existence, the Supreme Court has consistently sided with allowing blatant illegality and unconstitutional actions of Trump to continue. This is not normal. Indeed, it is unprecedented - in every sense of the word.

Until the advent of Trump, emergency requests to the Supreme Court from the government were extremely rare. Over the entire 16 years of the Bush and Obama administrations, eight were filed and only four granted. During Trump's first term alone, 41 were filed and 28 granted. Child's play:

"Since Trump returned to office on January 20, the court has acted in 23 cases on an emergency basis involving his policies, siding with him fully or partially 21 times, with one case declared moot.
In doing so, the court has expanded how it uses its emergency power, following at least six different legal paths to side with Trump, usually in decisions powered by the conservative justices, a Reuters analysis has found."

US Supreme Court expands its 'emergency' docket - and Trump's power too (Reuters, Oct 2, 2025)​

This is appalling. "These decisions have let Trump's aggressive and sometimes novel uses of executive authority proceed largely unhindered before their legality is fully determined, increasing his power in ways that critics have said undermines Congress and the various federal judges who have ruled against him." In short, the "conservative" majority is letting him "move fast and break things" - in this case, norms, the law, and the Constitution.

This is far from normal. A truly conservative Court (hence the "scare quotes") would preserve the status quo until an informed decision is reached. This Court is not doing so. "The actions by the justices have expanded the emergency docket's "effective power without the court formally acknowledging it," Bradley University law professor Taraleigh Davis said.

This expansion in turn boosts Trump's power, Davis added, because if administration officials know they are "likely to receive a stay on the emergency docket they can implement controversial policies immediately and fight the legal battle with the policy already in effect."

The court in emergency decisions has let Trump ban transgender people from the military, carry out mass firings of federal employees, remove agency officials despite statutory job protections and deport migrants to countries where they have no ties like South Sudan, to name a few, while litigation continues in lower courts. The practical effects of some of these decisions could be hard to unwind even if plaintiffs eventually win on the legal merits.

"These aren't decisions that somehow maintain the status quo. If they give the president the benefit of the doubt, that might mean that your husband ends up in an El Salvador prison ... that means your research doesn't get funded," Tulane University constitutional law professor Stephen Griffin said." It can legitimately be argued that some of these actions have led directly to the deaths of thousands of people already - with the stalling and destruction of USAID provisions to starving, and ill people - with tens or hundreds of thousands to follow.

The Roberts Court is acting immorally, unethically, and, in reality, unconstitutionally. They are as guilty as the regime itself for its depravities.

If the Trump haters didn't have an agenda to mount a court challenge to everything Trump does, there wouldn't be a need for the Supreme's emergency docket.

And yes, it IS an agenda. It was planned and announced before Trump was even elected.

Now, you can screech about "blatant illegality and unconstitutional actions"...just like all of these frivolous lawsuits are doing, but the buck stops at the Supreme Court. Get over it.

 

[j brown's body]

 

[j brown's body]

In one case, the Supreme Court chastised a lower court for following the law instead of taking a cue from their shadow docket decision that is not law.

 

[j brown's body]

Over a series of "star chamber" orders during the Trump regime's existence, the Supreme Court has consistently sided with allowing blatant illegality and unconstitutional actions of Trump to continue. This is not normal. Indeed, it is unprecedented - in every sense of the word.

Until the advent of Trump, emergency requests to the Supreme Court from the government were extremely rare. Over the entire 16 years of the Bush and Obama administrations, eight were filed and only four granted. During Trump's first term alone, 41 were filed and 28 granted. Child's play:

"Since Trump returned to office on January 20, the court has acted in 23 cases on an emergency basis involving his policies, siding with him fully or partially 21 times, with one case declared moot.
In doing so, the court has expanded how it uses its emergency power, following at least six different legal paths to side with Trump, usually in decisions powered by the conservative justices, a Reuters analysis has found."

US Supreme Court expands its 'emergency' docket - and Trump's power too (Reuters, Oct 2, 2025)​

This is appalling. "These decisions have let Trump's aggressive and sometimes novel uses of executive authority proceed largely unhindered before their legality is fully determined, increasing his power in ways that critics have said undermines Congress and the various federal judges who have ruled against him." In short, the "conservative" majority is letting him "move fast and break things" - in this case, norms, the law, and the Constitution.

This is far from normal. A truly conservative Court (hence the "scare quotes") would preserve the status quo until an informed decision is reached. This Court is not doing so. "The actions by the justices have expanded the emergency docket's "effective power without the court formally acknowledging it," Bradley University law professor Taraleigh Davis said.

This expansion in turn boosts Trump's power, Davis added, because if administration officials know they are "likely to receive a stay on the emergency docket they can implement controversial policies immediately and fight the legal battle with the policy already in effect."

The court in emergency decisions has let Trump ban transgender people from the military, carry out mass firings of federal employees, remove agency officials despite statutory job protections and deport migrants to countries where they have no ties like South Sudan, to name a few, while litigation continues in lower courts. The practical effects of some of these decisions could be hard to unwind even if plaintiffs eventually win on the legal merits.

"These aren't decisions that somehow maintain the status quo. If they give the president the benefit of the doubt, that might mean that your husband ends up in an El Salvador prison ... that means your research doesn't get funded," Tulane University constitutional law professor Stephen Griffin said." It can legitimately be argued that some of these actions have led directly to the deaths of thousands of people already - with the stalling and destruction of USAID provisions to starving, and ill people - with tens or hundreds of thousands to follow.

The Roberts Court is acting immorally, unethically, and, in reality, unconstitutionally. They are as guilty as the regime itself for its depravities.

This is a great article, I thought of posting it myself, The conclusion says it all. The Court doesn't have the resources to enforce their decisions and they have no reason to believe that Trump would adhere to them.


"The majority may be trying hard to avoid, or at least maximally postpone, being put in a position when the court is issuing the administration an unambiguous order that Trump may defy," New York University School of Law constitutional scholar Peter Shane said."

 

[rhinefire]

Over a series of "star chamber" orders during the Trump regime's existence, the Supreme Court has consistently sided with allowing blatant illegality and unconstitutional actions of Trump to continue. This is not normal. Indeed, it is unprecedented - in every sense of the word.

Until the advent of Trump, emergency requests to the Supreme Court from the government were extremely rare. Over the entire 16 years of the Bush and Obama administrations, eight were filed and only four granted. During Trump's first term alone, 41 were filed and 28 granted. Child's play:

"Since Trump returned to office on January 20, the court has acted in 23 cases on an emergency basis involving his policies, siding with him fully or partially 21 times, with one case declared moot.
In doing so, the court has expanded how it uses its emergency power, following at least six different legal paths to side with Trump, usually in decisions powered by the conservative justices, a Reuters analysis has found."

US Supreme Court expands its 'emergency' docket - and Trump's power too (Reuters, Oct 2, 2025)​

This is appalling. "These decisions have let Trump's aggressive and sometimes novel uses of executive authority proceed largely unhindered before their legality is fully determined, increasing his power in ways that critics have said undermines Congress and the various federal judges who have ruled against him." In short, the "conservative" majority is letting him "move fast and break things" - in this case, norms, the law, and the Constitution.

This is far from normal. A truly conservative Court (hence the "scare quotes") would preserve the status quo until an informed decision is reached. This Court is not doing so. "The actions by the justices have expanded the emergency docket's "effective power without the court formally acknowledging it," Bradley University law professor Taraleigh Davis said.

This expansion in turn boosts Trump's power, Davis added, because if administration officials know they are "likely to receive a stay on the emergency docket they can implement controversial policies immediately and fight the legal battle with the policy already in effect."

The court in emergency decisions has let Trump ban transgender people from the military, carry out mass firings of federal employees, remove agency officials despite statutory job protections and deport migrants to countries where they have no ties like South Sudan, to name a few, while litigation continues in lower courts. The practical effects of some of these decisions could be hard to unwind even if plaintiffs eventually win on the legal merits.

"These aren't decisions that somehow maintain the status quo. If they give the president the benefit of the doubt, that might mean that your husband ends up in an El Salvador prison ... that means your research doesn't get funded," Tulane University constitutional law professor Stephen Griffin said." It can legitimately be argued that some of these actions have led directly to the deaths of thousands of people already - with the stalling and destruction of USAID provisions to starving, and ill people - with tens or hundreds of thousands to follow.

The Roberts Court is acting immorally, unethically, and, in reality, unconstitutionally. They are as guilty as the regime itself for its depravities.

Hand picked by Fearless Leader and two more possibly in the future making it the Trump Court

 

[Blue Dog]

There are at least five reactionaries on the SC. Not exactly shocked they are molding the constitution to their “ideology”.

 

[bomberfox]

Over a series of "star chamber" orders during the Trump regime's existence, the Supreme Court has consistently sided with allowing blatant illegality and unconstitutional actions of Trump to continue. This is not normal. Indeed, it is unprecedented - in every sense of the word.

Until the advent of Trump, emergency requests to the Supreme Court from the government were extremely rare. Over the entire 16 years of the Bush and Obama administrations, eight were filed and only four granted. During Trump's first term alone, 41 were filed and 28 granted. Child's play:

"Since Trump returned to office on January 20, the court has acted in 23 cases on an emergency basis involving his policies, siding with him fully or partially 21 times, with one case declared moot.
In doing so, the court has expanded how it uses its emergency power, following at least six different legal paths to side with Trump, usually in decisions powered by the conservative justices, a Reuters analysis has found."

US Supreme Court expands its 'emergency' docket - and Trump's power too (Reuters, Oct 2, 2025)​

This is appalling. "These decisions have let Trump's aggressive and sometimes novel uses of executive authority proceed largely unhindered before their legality is fully determined, increasing his power in ways that critics have said undermines Congress and the various federal judges who have ruled against him." In short, the "conservative" majority is letting him "move fast and break things" - in this case, norms, the law, and the Constitution.

This is far from normal. A truly conservative Court (hence the "scare quotes") would preserve the status quo until an informed decision is reached. This Court is not doing so. "The actions by the justices have expanded the emergency docket's "effective power without the court formally acknowledging it," Bradley University law professor Taraleigh Davis said.

This expansion in turn boosts Trump's power, Davis added, because if administration officials know they are "likely to receive a stay on the emergency docket they can implement controversial policies immediately and fight the legal battle with the policy already in effect."

The court in emergency decisions has let Trump ban transgender people from the military, carry out mass firings of federal employees, remove agency officials despite statutory job protections and deport migrants to countries where they have no ties like South Sudan, to name a few, while litigation continues in lower courts. The practical effects of some of these decisions could be hard to unwind even if plaintiffs eventually win on the legal merits.

"These aren't decisions that somehow maintain the status quo. If they give the president the benefit of the doubt, that might mean that your husband ends up in an El Salvador prison ... that means your research doesn't get funded," Tulane University constitutional law professor Stephen Griffin said." It can legitimately be argued that some of these actions have led directly to the deaths of thousands of people already - with the stalling and destruction of USAID provisions to starving, and ill people - with tens or hundreds of thousands to follow.

The Roberts Court is acting immorally, unethically, and, in reality, unconstitutionally. They are as guilty as the regime itself for its depravities.

Conservatism preserving and enhancing hierarchy as usual.

 

[rahl]

Not a word about the root cause of the uptick in SCOTUS emergency actions. Democrats in the latest phase of lawfare against have eschewed Congress in favor of a tsunami of forum shopped law suits opposing every action of the Bad Orange Man. The DOJ has no choice to defend against Democrats latest ploy to undermine the Republic by petitioning the SCOTUS for emergency relief.

When trump does illegal things, he gets taken to court. He’s been taken to court an unprecedented number of times, because he does an unprecedented amount of illegal things.

 

[Logophile]

There are at least five reactionaries on the SC. Not exactly shocked they are molding the constitution to their “ideology”.

Has it ever occurred to you that YOU may be the socialist reactionary misplaced in an otherwise free country with free mobility?? Just curious

 

[soap box]

Over a series of "star chamber" orders during the Trump regime's existence, the Supreme Court has consistently sided with allowing blatant illegality and unconstitutional actions of Trump to continue. This is not normal. Indeed, it is unprecedented - in every sense of the word.

Until the advent of Trump, emergency requests to the Supreme Court from the government were extremely rare. Over the entire 16 years of the Bush and Obama administrations, eight were filed and only four granted. During Trump's first term alone, 41 were filed and 28 granted. Child's play:

"Since Trump returned to office on January 20, the court has acted in 23 cases on an emergency basis involving his policies, siding with him fully or partially 21 times, with one case declared moot.
In doing so, the court has expanded how it uses its emergency power, following at least six different legal paths to side with Trump, usually in decisions powered by the conservative justices, a Reuters analysis has found."

US Supreme Court expands its 'emergency' docket - and Trump's power too (Reuters, Oct 2, 2025)​

This is appalling. "These decisions have let Trump's aggressive and sometimes novel uses of executive authority proceed largely unhindered before their legality is fully determined, increasing his power in ways that critics have said undermines Congress and the various federal judges who have ruled against him." In short, the "conservative" majority is letting him "move fast and break things" - in this case, norms, the law, and the Constitution.

This is far from normal. A truly conservative Court (hence the "scare quotes") would preserve the status quo until an informed decision is reached. This Court is not doing so. "The actions by the justices have expanded the emergency docket's "effective power without the court formally acknowledging it," Bradley University law professor Taraleigh Davis said.

This expansion in turn boosts Trump's power, Davis added, because if administration officials know they are "likely to receive a stay on the emergency docket they can implement controversial policies immediately and fight the legal battle with the policy already in effect."

The court in emergency decisions has let Trump ban transgender people from the military, carry out mass firings of federal employees, remove agency officials despite statutory job protections and deport migrants to countries where they have no ties like South Sudan, to name a few, while litigation continues in lower courts. The practical effects of some of these decisions could be hard to unwind even if plaintiffs eventually win on the legal merits.

"These aren't decisions that somehow maintain the status quo. If they give the president the benefit of the doubt, that might mean that your husband ends up in an El Salvador prison ... that means your research doesn't get funded," Tulane University constitutional law professor Stephen Griffin said." It can legitimately be argued that some of these actions have led directly to the deaths of thousands of people already - with the stalling and destruction of USAID provisions to starving, and ill people - with tens or hundreds of thousands to follow.

The Roberts Court is acting immorally, unethically, and, in reality, unconstitutionally. They are as guilty as the regime itself for its depravities.

Trump's emergencies aren't. Isn't there supposed to be a definition of what an emergency would be. Is that what's being abused?

 

[Blue Dog]

Has it ever occurred to you that YOU may be the socialist reactionary misplaced in an otherwise free country with free mobility?? Just curious

Wut?

 

[Along Came Jones]

Point of reference.

"I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States." -- the commission and oath of office.

 

[Juks]

You remind me of what people say about Robert Reich: "Good writer. Too bad he gets everything wrong."

The switch in time that saved nine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ignorance is truly bliss. Two of the least cognizant and most partisan posters on the board provide... absolutely nothing. Huge shock. Empty paper bags provide more substance.

Many Americans (and Westerners in general) are educated in the idea that “everything can be debated.” But when a political movement no longer acknowledges the same fundamental rules of the game; facts, truth, institutions, justice, then discussion ceases to be rational. It becomes a tool for delay, denial, and normalization. A constitutional structure is being stretched to its breaking point. And as before, a kind of moral cognitive dissonance is the most immediate reaction. The mind wants to analyze, weigh arguments, think in nuances… while the body and intuition scream: “this is wrong, this is dangerous.” And it is precisely that dissonance that makes many people passive. They believe they are still being objective, when in fact it is the situation itself that has become irrational. Courts, government agencies, and the media are institutions built on trust and norms, not merely on legal text. When those norms are consistently violated, the entire structure erodes rapidly.

It is therefore not hysterical to speak of a threat to democracy. It is empirically correct to speak of a democratic decay unfolding in real time, while parts of the population still believe they are engaged in an ordinary partisan struggle.

My German mother (born in 1925) told me enough stories for me to understand that the same thing happened in Germany in the 1930s. As I’ve said before: all the way up to Kristallnacht. And then it was too late to do anything about it. In Germany, many citizens believed that the rule of law, the army, and the bureaucracy would stand up to extremism. In reality, they adapted, not out of malice, but out of a desire to avoid chaos. Most believed they were preserving stability. In fact, they were greasing the wheels of tyranny.

 

[aociswundumho]

Courts, government agencies, and the media are institutions built on trust and norms, not merely on legal text. When those norms are consistently violated, the entire structure erodes rapidly.

Need I point out the irony of a socialist writing this? There have been dozens of socialist countries, virtually all of them have been one party, authoritarian states.

 

[Juks]

Need I point out the irony of a socialist writing this? There have been dozens of socialist countries, virtually all of them have been one party, authoritarian states.

Socialism” doesn’t mean the same thing in the European context as it does in the US. In the US the word socialism is used almost exclusively as the opposite of capitalism and freedom. In the US “Socialism” is strongly colored by the Cold War; “socialist” = “communist” = “Soviet dictatorship.”

In Europe, however, socialism has a much broader and more democratic meaning. It refers to a mixed economy with strong social safety nets, where the state has a responsibility for welfare, equality, and education, but where private enterprise, free elections, and independent media are natural and essential parts of the system.

 

[Helix]

The far right of the court is giving significant power to the executive branch. I suppose that a lot of us hope that things will eventually return to a previous version of normal somehow, but the further this goes, the more difficult that becomes.

 

[Along Came Jones]

Socialism” doesn’t mean the same thing in the European context as it does in the US. In the US the word socialism is used almost exclusively as the opposite of capitalism and freedom. In the US “Socialism” is strongly colored by the Cold War; “socialist” = “communist” = “Soviet dictatorship.”

In Europe, however, socialism has a much broader and more democratic meaning. It refers to a mixed economy with strong social safety nets, where the state has a responsibility for welfare, equality, and education, but where private enterprise, free elections, and independent media are natural and essential parts of the system.

I would amend the perceived equivalencies thus:

socialism = communism = collectivization = Soviet dictatorship

 

[Along Came Jones]

The far right of the court is giving significant power to the executive branch. I suppose that a lot of us hope that things will eventually return to a previous version of normal somehow, but the further this goes, the more difficult that becomes.

The new Supreme Court term which begins today will put all of that to the test.

 

[NWRatCon]

Many Americans (and Westerners in general) are educated in the idea that “everything can be debated.” But when a political movement no longer acknowledges the same fundamental rules of the game; facts, truth, institutions, justice, then discussion ceases to be rational. It becomes a tool for delay, denial, and normalization. A constitutional structure is being stretched to its breaking point. And as before, a kind of moral cognitive dissonance is the most immediate reaction. The mind wants to analyze, weigh arguments, think in nuances… while the body and intuition scream: “this is wrong, this is dangerous.” And it is precisely that dissonance that makes many people passive. They believe they are still being objective, when in fact it is the situation itself that has become irrational. Courts, government agencies, and the media are institutions built on trust and norms, not merely on legal text. When those norms are consistently violated, the entire structure erodes rapidly.

It is therefore not hysterical to speak of a threat to democracy. It is empirically correct to speak of a democratic decay unfolding in real time, while parts of the population still believe they are engaged in an ordinary partisan struggle.

My German mother (born in 1925) told me enough stories for me to understand that the same thing happened in Germany in the 1930s. As I’ve said before: all the way up to Kristallnacht. And then it was too late to do anything about it. In Germany, many citizens believed that the rule of law, the army, and the bureaucracy would stand up to extremism. In reality, they adapted, not out of malice, but out of a desire to avoid chaos. Most believed they were preserving stability. In fact, they were greasing the wheels of tyranny.

I've noted before that criminals "get away with it" because they are more willing to brazen than their victims. It's more shock than pacifism.

That is how fascism takes over. It is a criminal enterprise. I use that term advisedly. Authoritarians come in many flavors, but fascists are a particular type. What we are experiencing is fascism in action. Many of the participants - LE personnel from other agencies dragooned into participating in ICE's storm trooper actions (and even DHS personnel), military personnel engaged in murder in the Caribbean, Congress members - do so reluctantly, and then mechanically. It is conditioning them as much as the population. They are accustomed to following instructions, not bucking "the system".

It only takes a few dedicated zealots to corrupt that system - 6 jurists, even fewer media owners, a dozen Cabinet members, a few dozen US Attorneys, a few Senators and Congress members in leadership positions. They wield such power because we all buy into the existing structure.

But now that "norm" - that system - is being used against us for nefarious purposes. It is hard to process just how abnormal this is.

 

[NWRatCon]

The new Supreme Court term which begins today will put all of that to the test.

It is not going to go well.

 

[aociswundumho]

Socialism” doesn’t mean the same thing in the European context as it does in the US. In the US the word socialism is used almost exclusively as the opposite of capitalism and freedom.

Socialism is public control over the means of production and distribution.

In the US “Socialism” is strongly colored by the Cold War; “socialist” = “communist” = “Soviet dictatorship.”

Because that's what it is.

In Europe, however, socialism has a much broader and more democratic meaning. It refers to a mixed economy with strong social safety nets,

Then that's what you should call it. In a mixed economy with a big welfare state, the capitalist side of the economy is the most important part, because if you eliminate capitalism, then the welfare state goes way, because there would be no money to pay for it. Your country of sweden found this out in the 70s, when they went a little bit too far left.