...your misimpression that we had a coup attempt on 1/6 and, further, that Trump was somehow involved in one. You seem to base everything on that false foundation. Examples of actual coup attempts would be the fraudulent Russia Hoax investigation and subsequent impeachment process. What happened on 1/6 was instead a few dozen folks getting out of hand at a perfectly appropriate political protest.

Regardless, since you're such a strong advocate of courts deciding the facts for everyone else, tell me, can you point to any court that has decided we had an attempted coup on 1/6? If not, then how can you say we had a coup attempt? Live by the sword....

You dodged the OJ question, as expected. The question is not whether we should abide by a court decision. The question -- or questions, really -- are whether 1) we can criticize court decisions and 2) courts always settle questions of fact. You dodged the OJ question because obviously the court did NOT determine the facts -- i.e., the fact of whether he killed his wife. Finding someone "not guilty" does not mean they definitively did not commit the crime. Further complicating your argument for the omniscience of courts is the fact that a civil court subsequently found OJ guilty of killing his wife. Just like in the OJ case (except for the numerous cases that were never even heard), the courts involved in the 2020 election disputes did not decide whether laws were broken and whether fraud actually occurred. This is not complicated -- why do you persist in making it so?

One final note. I always love the bellyaching over Garland. The president does not get to appoint Supreme Court justices. The president nominates them, and the Senate -- a political body in its own right representing the people just as much as the president -- decides whether to confirm them.

In the case of Garland, the Senate simply decided not to confirm him, as is their right. End of story and no big deal. Regarding whether hypocrisy was involved (and I really don't care -- it's politics, after all), the Dems called for Barrett not to be confirmed in 2020 using the exact opposite logic they used in calling for Garland to be confirmed. They were the hypocrites on this issue. It was the Senate Republicans -- under Cocaine Mitch -- who were perfectly consistent with their reasoning on both nominations. The Senate gets to decide whether they confirm a nominee, end of story. And that's exactly what they did in both cases. In the first case, they decided not to confirm, and, in the second, they decided to confirm.