So with the Ed Snowden faction the Heir believes is hijacking the cause of social justice, he observes them as falling silent on the arrest of that one suspect in the derailment incident in New York.  The Ed Snowdens seemed to have acknowledged that they can't protest the treatment of the derailment suspect, since cameras on visual catching the perp walk showed no evidence that the suspect was brutalized or mistreated in any way, shape or form.  The Heir figures that the Ed Snowdens can't make the case for abolishing the police (on an apparently permanent basis, contrary to the Camden Project), since you need the cops to arrest this person in the first place.  What happens to the suspect after that legally, e.g., hearings, indictment, a court case, the Heir sees a separate at this point in time.  He could certainly make objections in the future if he believes the suspect is going to get Roger Stone Style Leniency solely because of what the Heir sees as our overly lenient society.  That's why there was that one rude couple we encountered back in August near the beach conformant with Sonya's and Leeanna's preferred dress code who placed their belongings on top of a drinking fountain the Heir was going to use.  They never even cared to notice that someone wanted to use the fountain, and left their items there for at least 10 minutes.  The Heir believes that if our society adhered more to principle, the rude couple wouldn't have done that.  So he sees the cops as having a role in shaping the moral development of society at large.  Their being unpopular now because of excessive force the Heir sees as no excuse for anyone to act like they can do anything they want.

We see the passing of RBG as a bummer, and acknowledge the accomplishments Justice Ginsburg made in her lifetime.  That said, the very minute the Heir's coworkers on the catering counter at Bland Barns showed him the headline on their smartphones, the Heir knew right away what kind of political bleep storm was going to result.  So this contentiousness over the Supreme Court in an election year comes as no surprise to the Heir.  Part of that is how around this time the Heir has observed the progressives as writing off the entire future of America just because the Supreme Court is somehow more "conservative" and isn't always going to rule the way the progressives want.  But as an example, the Heir points to the court opinion that effectively overturned job discrimination against gays.  He points to the analysis that it's not as if Neal Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh became "pro-gay" all of a sudden, as much as the conservatism of the court is at least partially about *conserving* precedent.  The analysis went into detail on how that's the case, so if someone like Amy Coney Barrett gets on there or someone else, what the Heir sees as important is that you don't get a hack on there that'll totally ignore precedent or throw jurisprudence into the junk heap and try to legislate from the bench.  That has to go for all Justices, regardless of politics.  That said, the Heir wonders just what *really* keeps the Supreme Court from becoming a third house of Congress, because he doesn't recall anything in the letter of the Constitution that says that the Court *has* to exercise jurisprudence, and *cannot* legislate from the bench, and *has* to respect precedent at least in those cases where the petitioners failed to provide sufficient reason for the Court to overturn precedent with respect to a given type of case.