Flying Pace
@flyingpace.bsky.social
Writer, teacher, editor, Icelandic horse with a resplendent mane.
Block pundits who aren’t calling for impeachment. Let them grift each other. Shrink their stupid engagement farm.
December 5, 2025 at 5:58 AM
Block pundits who aren’t calling for impeachment. Let them grift each other. Shrink their stupid engagement farm.
Reposted by Flying Pace
Sick of Trump? OK, well, we just saw Congress hates anything that mucks with air travel, so stop buying plane tickets for a few months and tell Congress you’ll start again once they dump Trump.
We’ve got call scripts for you and everything:
groundtheplanes.com
We’ve got call scripts for you and everything:
groundtheplanes.com
Ground the Planes
Boycott all air travel until Congress fires Trump.
groundtheplanes.com
December 5, 2025 at 4:59 AM
Sick of Trump? OK, well, we just saw Congress hates anything that mucks with air travel, so stop buying plane tickets for a few months and tell Congress you’ll start again once they dump Trump.
We’ve got call scripts for you and everything:
groundtheplanes.com
We’ve got call scripts for you and everything:
groundtheplanes.com
"Undermine"? They ARE illegitimate, have been for years. They're bigots, criminals, insurrectionists. At this point, "average Americans" probably understand this better than the average law prof.
To average Americans these rulings come out of the blue, because there's no oral argument and less focus on the shadow docket. And when the Court fails to explain its emergency rulings, they undermine their own legitimacy because they appear to be acting in an unprincipled way.
December 5, 2025 at 3:04 AM
"Undermine"? They ARE illegitimate, have been for years. They're bigots, criminals, insurrectionists. At this point, "average Americans" probably understand this better than the average law prof.
Again it's essential that we press the "legal experts" and "court watchers" on this point - I fear they really think the SCOTUS psychopaths are gods - it's terrifying at this point that they don't even feel compelled to answer questions like these as part of their "expertise"
Most folks who cried foul at SCOTUS granting "presidential immunity" seem to think deep down that SCOTUS has immunity!
I've never seen a pundit confront the question "What would be a criminal SCOTUS ruling?"
Like, can SCOTUS "rule" that gas chambers are legal? No, right? But then where's the line?
I've never seen a pundit confront the question "What would be a criminal SCOTUS ruling?"
Like, can SCOTUS "rule" that gas chambers are legal? No, right? But then where's the line?
Nothing against Serwer, but I worry that even the best big-name pundits still aren't reckoning with this:
Granting "the immunity" WAS ITSELF BREAKING THE LAW. It was an act of insurrection. So was nullifying the Insurrection Clause on Trump's behalf. The consequences should be prison.
Granting "the immunity" WAS ITSELF BREAKING THE LAW. It was an act of insurrection. So was nullifying the Insurrection Clause on Trump's behalf. The consequences should be prison.
December 5, 2025 at 2:43 AM
Again it's essential that we press the "legal experts" and "court watchers" on this point - I fear they really think the SCOTUS psychopaths are gods - it's terrifying at this point that they don't even feel compelled to answer questions like these as part of their "expertise"
Not just bad judges. Bigots, criminals, insurrectionists.
This is really important. The problem with the Roberts Court is not that they are conservative. It's that they are bad judges.
It's not just liberal judges they're doing this to. They're doing this to plenty of conservative judges too; judges who actually spent weeks and weeks poring over the details and with their arms deep in the guts of thousands of pages of documents and days of testimony.
Those judges are pissed.
Those judges are pissed.
December 5, 2025 at 2:24 AM
Not just bad judges. Bigots, criminals, insurrectionists.
Reposted by Flying Pace
The SCOTUS is like an organized crime outfit and Dems insist the most we can do is just help them put less corrupt mobsters in the group. They then write passionate anti-whacking dissents while appearing at events with the most violent mobsters and insisting they all get along well.
I'll just say again that any D who is not committed to expanding the court is not actually committed to...anything.
no change is possible in a country where the supreme legislative body is a supermajority of robed christofascist hacks.
no change is possible in a country where the supreme legislative body is a supermajority of robed christofascist hacks.
December 5, 2025 at 1:54 AM
The SCOTUS is like an organized crime outfit and Dems insist the most we can do is just help them put less corrupt mobsters in the group. They then write passionate anti-whacking dissents while appearing at events with the most violent mobsters and insisting they all get along well.
It's not just "nakedly partisan," it's racist and criminal. Mass disenfranchisement of Black people is a human rights crime.
And white commentators with large platforms have a moral obligation to say it.
And white commentators with large platforms have a moral obligation to say it.
Agree with this thread. Worth reading in full.
25 years ago John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and AC Barrett all worked on GWBush's 2000 Florida recount team. What they're doing now is, if anything, more nakedly partisan.
Fire-breathing dissent by Kagan, with Sotomayor and Jackson.
25 years ago John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and AC Barrett all worked on GWBush's 2000 Florida recount team. What they're doing now is, if anything, more nakedly partisan.
Fire-breathing dissent by Kagan, with Sotomayor and Jackson.
They're not even trying to appear nonpartisan anymore.
December 5, 2025 at 1:37 AM
It's not just "nakedly partisan," it's racist and criminal. Mass disenfranchisement of Black people is a human rights crime.
And white commentators with large platforms have a moral obligation to say it.
And white commentators with large platforms have a moral obligation to say it.
At this point, there's no serious version of "SCOTUS reform" that doesn't involve John Roberts in an orange jumpsuit.
Incredible how all these white "legal experts" sit back and watch the Roberts Court taking a tiki torch to Black voting rights, without ever saying the most basic thing: "This is illegal."
December 5, 2025 at 1:22 AM
At this point, there's no serious version of "SCOTUS reform" that doesn't involve John Roberts in an orange jumpsuit.
Incredible how all these white "legal experts" sit back and watch the Roberts Court taking a tiki torch to Black voting rights, without ever saying the most basic thing: "This is illegal."
December 5, 2025 at 12:57 AM
Incredible how all these white "legal experts" sit back and watch the Roberts Court taking a tiki torch to Black voting rights, without ever saying the most basic thing: "This is illegal."
I want more people to notice how condemning Hegseth and Trump as war criminals, without any of the usual polite white bullshit, has actually done some good lately - and then I want them to drop the polite white bullshit when speaking of SCOTUS
bsky.app/profile/flyi...
bsky.app/profile/flyi...
This is the right framing. Trump and the SCOTUS majority are shredding the Constitution wholesale. And since the Constitution is the lawful source of their own power, it means they have no lawful power. They‘re a criminal conspiracy against the people and must be ousted and brought to justice.
We're living through a constitutional revolution, a legalistic autocoup, that's remade the American federal government into a dictatorship.
You may be tempted to call it an elected dictatorship except that US presidential elections cannot authorize dictators, only constitutionally limited leaders.
You may be tempted to call it an elected dictatorship except that US presidential elections cannot authorize dictators, only constitutionally limited leaders.
December 5, 2025 at 12:39 AM
I want more people to notice how condemning Hegseth and Trump as war criminals, without any of the usual polite white bullshit, has actually done some good lately - and then I want them to drop the polite white bullshit when speaking of SCOTUS
bsky.app/profile/flyi...
bsky.app/profile/flyi...
OK. What if you just said that they're racist monsters and insurrection co-conspirators who should be in prison?
Simply amazing that the Supreme Court declared an end to legal race discrimination in the affirmative action case two years ago and now allows overt racism in both immigration arrests and redistricting.
Using race to help minorities? Bad. Using it to discriminate against them? Very, very good.
Using race to help minorities? Bad. Using it to discriminate against them? Very, very good.
BREAKING: Supreme Court GRANTS Texas request to restore redistricting maps
apparent 6-3 ruling with the liberals in dissent @courthousenews.bsky.social
apparent 6-3 ruling with the liberals in dissent @courthousenews.bsky.social
December 5, 2025 at 12:17 AM
OK. What if you just said that they're racist monsters and insurrection co-conspirators who should be in prison?
Reposted by Flying Pace
I mean that really should have ended when the same court pulled a clear judicial coup to reempower a violent insurrectionist who led an attack on the literal US capitol.
December 5, 2025 at 12:14 AM
I mean that really should have ended when the same court pulled a clear judicial coup to reempower a violent insurrectionist who led an attack on the literal US capitol.
Reposted by Flying Pace
I can't stress enough:
AS SOON AS YOU ASK THIS QUESTION, YOU'RE FORCED TO ADMIT THAT THE TRUMP V. UNITED STATES AND TRUMP V. ANDERSON "RULINGS" WERE CRIMINAL ACTS.
Acts of insurrection.
Some pundits call SCOTUS "illegitimate" but nothing more. Not "seditious," etc.
That has to change, and fast.
AS SOON AS YOU ASK THIS QUESTION, YOU'RE FORCED TO ADMIT THAT THE TRUMP V. UNITED STATES AND TRUMP V. ANDERSON "RULINGS" WERE CRIMINAL ACTS.
Acts of insurrection.
Some pundits call SCOTUS "illegitimate" but nothing more. Not "seditious," etc.
That has to change, and fast.
October 24, 2025 at 3:12 AM
I can't stress enough:
AS SOON AS YOU ASK THIS QUESTION, YOU'RE FORCED TO ADMIT THAT THE TRUMP V. UNITED STATES AND TRUMP V. ANDERSON "RULINGS" WERE CRIMINAL ACTS.
Acts of insurrection.
Some pundits call SCOTUS "illegitimate" but nothing more. Not "seditious," etc.
That has to change, and fast.
AS SOON AS YOU ASK THIS QUESTION, YOU'RE FORCED TO ADMIT THAT THE TRUMP V. UNITED STATES AND TRUMP V. ANDERSON "RULINGS" WERE CRIMINAL ACTS.
Acts of insurrection.
Some pundits call SCOTUS "illegitimate" but nothing more. Not "seditious," etc.
That has to change, and fast.
Just going to keep re-upping these questions as John Roberts and his white-hood cronies keep playing in our faces
Most folks who cried foul at SCOTUS granting "presidential immunity" seem to think deep down that SCOTUS has immunity!
I've never seen a pundit confront the question "What would be a criminal SCOTUS ruling?"
Like, can SCOTUS "rule" that gas chambers are legal? No, right? But then where's the line?
I've never seen a pundit confront the question "What would be a criminal SCOTUS ruling?"
Like, can SCOTUS "rule" that gas chambers are legal? No, right? But then where's the line?
Nothing against Serwer, but I worry that even the best big-name pundits still aren't reckoning with this:
Granting "the immunity" WAS ITSELF BREAKING THE LAW. It was an act of insurrection. So was nullifying the Insurrection Clause on Trump's behalf. The consequences should be prison.
Granting "the immunity" WAS ITSELF BREAKING THE LAW. It was an act of insurrection. So was nullifying the Insurrection Clause on Trump's behalf. The consequences should be prison.
December 5, 2025 at 12:08 AM
Just going to keep re-upping these questions as John Roberts and his white-hood cronies keep playing in our faces
Until "Supreme Court watchers" and "constitutional law experts" can convincingly answer these kinds of questions, they might as well be experts on phrenology
Can John Roberts shoot someone on 5th Ave and get away with it?
What if Roberts and his cronies "rule" that he can get away with it?
This may be the central legal and political question of our time, and it's amazing how few people—in an ocean of legal and political commentary—ever ask it!
What if Roberts and his cronies "rule" that he can get away with it?
This may be the central legal and political question of our time, and it's amazing how few people—in an ocean of legal and political commentary—ever ask it!
December 5, 2025 at 12:06 AM
Until "Supreme Court watchers" and "constitutional law experts" can convincingly answer these kinds of questions, they might as well be experts on phrenology
Tonight would be a good night for "SCOTUS watchers" and "legal experts" to admit that Roberts & Co. are not just bad or wrong or mean but engaged in a deeply racist criminal conspiracy
To put it another way:
Many people who yell "No Kings!" about Trump seem to believe, unconsciously, that the overlords-for-life issuing "rulings" in their pompous robes actually are a form of royalty. "Supreme" law in human form.
They've never truly questioned where those "Supreme" powers end.
Many people who yell "No Kings!" about Trump seem to believe, unconsciously, that the overlords-for-life issuing "rulings" in their pompous robes actually are a form of royalty. "Supreme" law in human form.
They've never truly questioned where those "Supreme" powers end.
Most folks who cried foul at SCOTUS granting "presidential immunity" seem to think deep down that SCOTUS has immunity!
I've never seen a pundit confront the question "What would be a criminal SCOTUS ruling?"
Like, can SCOTUS "rule" that gas chambers are legal? No, right? But then where's the line?
I've never seen a pundit confront the question "What would be a criminal SCOTUS ruling?"
Like, can SCOTUS "rule" that gas chambers are legal? No, right? But then where's the line?
December 5, 2025 at 12:04 AM
Tonight would be a good night for "SCOTUS watchers" and "legal experts" to admit that Roberts & Co. are not just bad or wrong or mean but engaged in a deeply racist criminal conspiracy
Can we have a dissent where they acknowledge that their "colleagues" are criminal conspirators with an insurrectionist?
It's really time to end this charade
It's really time to end this charade
Agree with this thread. Worth reading in full.
25 years ago John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and AC Barrett all worked on GWBush's 2000 Florida recount team. What they're doing now is, if anything, more nakedly partisan.
Fire-breathing dissent by Kagan, with Sotomayor and Jackson.
25 years ago John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and AC Barrett all worked on GWBush's 2000 Florida recount team. What they're doing now is, if anything, more nakedly partisan.
Fire-breathing dissent by Kagan, with Sotomayor and Jackson.
They're not even trying to appear nonpartisan anymore.
December 5, 2025 at 12:00 AM
Can we have a dissent where they acknowledge that their "colleagues" are criminal conspirators with an insurrectionist?
It's really time to end this charade
It's really time to end this charade
Yep! Not only is it silly, it serves the white supremacist agenda. People like Rufo can't operate in an environment where they're consistently called what they are.
Christopher Rufo is just a white supremacist, and I think it’s silly that we’re still doing news stories where he’s called a conservative activist or some other harmless sounding term.
December 4, 2025 at 7:32 PM
Yep! Not only is it silly, it serves the white supremacist agenda. People like Rufo can't operate in an environment where they're consistently called what they are.
Reposted by Flying Pace
@cathygellis.bsky.social lays it out in black and white: Failure to impeach is an abdication of duty.
If you read just one thing today, make it this:
"By not impeaching, or even starting the process of getting there, Congress sends the message that Trump is America, and that it has acquiesced to the Constitution being replaced by Trump’s brand of corrupt evil."
www.techdirt.com/2025/11/26/o...
"By not impeaching, or even starting the process of getting there, Congress sends the message that Trump is America, and that it has acquiesced to the Constitution being replaced by Trump’s brand of corrupt evil."
www.techdirt.com/2025/11/26/o...
Oaths Of Office, And How Everyone Not Moving To Impeach Trump Is Violating Their Own
Until very recently the only member of Congress excused from not having moved to impeach Trump was Rep. Grijalva, because until someone swore her in there was nothing she could officially do. But f…
www.techdirt.com
November 28, 2025 at 4:01 PM
@cathygellis.bsky.social lays it out in black and white: Failure to impeach is an abdication of duty.
Yes
An experienced organizer I really respect once reminded folks "you can't always win, but you can always, always inflict a cost. Those add up."
You cannot match the size and resources of these organizations that are abandoning trans youth and sacrificing trans lives, but you have one advantage they do not: an ability to maintain a relentless focus upon them.
Make it your work, every week, to think about how you can punish them.
Make it your work, every week, to think about how you can punish them.
December 4, 2025 at 1:51 PM
Yes
So if this pisses you off, you should get involved with @citizensimpeachment.com or similar and work to force the guy out of power—otherwise you're basically one of these people standing around feeling "uncomfortable" but doing jack shit about it
Trump, continued: "What the Somalian people have done to Minnesota is not even believable. It’s not even believable. And a lot of it starts with the governor. A lot of it starts with Barack HUSSEIN Obama, because that’s when people started coming in... They want to kiss our country good night."
December 4, 2025 at 12:42 PM
So if this pisses you off, you should get involved with @citizensimpeachment.com or similar and work to force the guy out of power—otherwise you're basically one of these people standing around feeling "uncomfortable" but doing jack shit about it
Reposted by Flying Pace
Trump trying to appear super-racist to distract from the fact that he is a pedophile isn't really working. He is both. Trump is a racist pedophile.
December 4, 2025 at 12:07 AM
Trump trying to appear super-racist to distract from the fact that he is a pedophile isn't really working. He is both. Trump is a racist pedophile.
Reposted by Flying Pace
"Nothing excuses Congress’s inaction.
The Constitution itself does not allow oath-taking officials to defend the Constitution only sometimes."
The Constitution itself does not allow oath-taking officials to defend the Constitution only sometimes."
If you read just one thing today, make it this:
"By not impeaching, or even starting the process of getting there, Congress sends the message that Trump is America, and that it has acquiesced to the Constitution being replaced by Trump’s brand of corrupt evil."
www.techdirt.com/2025/11/26/o...
"By not impeaching, or even starting the process of getting there, Congress sends the message that Trump is America, and that it has acquiesced to the Constitution being replaced by Trump’s brand of corrupt evil."
www.techdirt.com/2025/11/26/o...
Oaths Of Office, And How Everyone Not Moving To Impeach Trump Is Violating Their Own
Until very recently the only member of Congress excused from not having moved to impeach Trump was Rep. Grijalva, because until someone swore her in there was nothing she could officially do. But f…
www.techdirt.com
December 2, 2025 at 5:57 PM
"Nothing excuses Congress’s inaction.
The Constitution itself does not allow oath-taking officials to defend the Constitution only sometimes."
The Constitution itself does not allow oath-taking officials to defend the Constitution only sometimes."
Reposted by Flying Pace
Impeach Trump and Hegseth for war crimes, and then again for treason.
Q: If it's found that survivors were actually killed while clinging onto that boat, should Sec. Hegseth, Admiral Bradley, or others be punished?
TRUMP: I think you're gonna find that this is war. That these people were killing our people by the millions, actually.
TRUMP: I think you're gonna find that this is war. That these people were killing our people by the millions, actually.
December 3, 2025 at 9:19 PM
Impeach Trump and Hegseth for war crimes, and then again for treason.
As Citizens’ Impeachment closes in on 10K followers, I continue to be glad that there’s an org not only driving impeachment demands at scale, but writing about impeachment with such moral clarity. It‘s really helped cut through the noise this year.
"But they'll never!"
Stop giving them permission to "never."
Have they done impeachable things?
Does the Constitution require impeachment for those things?
If the answers to those two questions are yes, then that's the path. Don't let their bluster district from the rightness of the action.
Stop giving them permission to "never."
Have they done impeachable things?
Does the Constitution require impeachment for those things?
If the answers to those two questions are yes, then that's the path. Don't let their bluster district from the rightness of the action.
December 3, 2025 at 12:10 AM
As Citizens’ Impeachment closes in on 10K followers, I continue to be glad that there’s an org not only driving impeachment demands at scale, but writing about impeachment with such moral clarity. It‘s really helped cut through the noise this year.