Tropical Soulvangelical harbors some cynicisms about that apparent live mic incident with Sam Alito. What he heard from the Insurgent Network was that the person who solicited and recorded comments from both Alito and John Roberts described herself as a "progressive activist," but TSV's wondering how progressive she could possibly be when after submitting her recordings online she -didn't- get an Amtrak ticket to New York City to participate in that Day Of Hate outside the October 7 Memorial. After all, her fellow progressives would judge her as complacent and cowardly for not doing so, her not even having the option of, well I'm not going to do it because I disagree with those protestors. If you're progressive enough, TSV figures both from 2006 and 2013 (with Ed Snowden) that you can't "disagree" with fellow progressives on anything without being judged as complacent and cowardly. Here's the second sticking point for TSV, and that's about whether it really matters whether Alito was caught in either a forced or unforced live mic situation if there's nothing anyone can do about his refusing to recuse himself from January 6 cases. If his is the deciding vote on the immunity case, what difference does it make if the populace tries to say, well we're exercising our "right" to not give the court case our blessing, as per some apparent concept whose origin TSV isn't even all that sure about. Maybe he can do a search through those 15-odd pages in the Federalist Papers that talk about the Supreme Court, but the FP's are not as nationally binding as the -numerated- constitution. You can argue that the FP's can somehow make inference to an "unnumerated" constitution, but TSV has never seen any legal support for such a concept, let alone from the Supreme Court proper. And what about the point of dissents? Could a given juridiction use the dissents from a given Supreme case as basis for an actual legitimized defiance of the majority in said case? If not, why do dissenting opinions even exist? Just for the public record for a Justice to say why they disagree? Because TSV sees the same progressive types that this "activist" implies part of as looking at that whole 6-3 in a completely rigid fashion, in that, again, TSV sees it being because of the progressive movement that the Supreme Court is made into an oligarchic third branch of Congress, because he sees the progressives as outright dismissing the possibilities of either a dissent-based defiance of the Supreme Court or a Federalist Paper implied "unnumerated" constitution. TSV will see the progressives dismissing both as legalistic pipe dreams, and that further embues TSV's view of progressives as really not being on the side of the country. After all, TSV has seen since 2013 with Ed Snowden -trump- as being a byproduct of progressive extremism, and as such he doesn't see them as not wanting -trump- to win so as to push an if-not-one-then-the-other logical fallacy case to get AOC installed in 2028.