I could never associate with Harlan for at least two reasons.
1) His argument was not premised upon principle, merely an outcome. People might disagree, but at least have a principle to defend.
2) The apparent goal was the acceptance of the subordination of our Law to Obama’s will.
Until we meet again.
That is an excellent summation. However, Harlan did have principles (of a sort). They were far left moonbatty principles, however, so he had to keep them under wraps. That’s why it looked like he stood for nothing (other than the elevation of Obama’s word/will above all else): because he was a mind-numbed/self-lobotomized lefty attempting to ‘pass’ on a conservative site.