You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
I’ve not been commenting on Kavanaugh b/c whatever I might add is minimal. Let me be open about one thing. Mitch McConnell’s evil on Merrick Garland may have pushed us to enter the rarest of instances where costs simply had to be returned. And so we unravel. It’s just so sick.pic.twitter.com/lZJhNrGwLy
I try to be rational about politics but I’m so sickened by the modern Supreme Court confirmation process (Bork, Biden/McConnell, Thomas/Hill, Kavanaugh/Ford, etc....) that I can’t find any rational place to stand. So I think I just had very little to add. We just cocked this up.
If you are feeling disappointed in me, that’s fair in this case; this is a political/legal/human mess on so many levels that it results in complexes of problems to which I am simply not equal. I‘m just not equipped for this kind of politics. Sorry all.
Massive difference between Garland and the others you mentioned: Garland was never slandered and drug through the mud by the Right. In fact, I challenge you to find an instance where this was done by the Right. Other than that, nice list.
Dirty politics manifests differently if you control the levers of power. What was done to Mr. Garland was b/c GOP ran the show in Congress. It could "seem" nicer because of power. If u think GOP would not try something similar in reverse situation I have a bridge to sell you.
Big difference between refusing to floor a nominee based on procedure (and precedent), and accusing him of being a cult-leading rapist. If you don’t think the average citizen can’t see this, I have a bridge for YOU. The Left has gone too far. They’ll realize it in November.
You just restated your initial assertion & did not address the proposed concept. Thats those in power can hide dirty tactics in "procedure". I did not assert that the DNC were not playing dirty. GOP plays just as dirty when they are out of power, lots of people see that too.
I think the reasonable stance is that he easily could’ve done it and he easily could be innocent. The circus surrounding it is what is sickening. Especially the insinuations that his behavior yesterday implies how dangerous he is when he’s drunk.
The real problem is our deference to the judiciary. If we would embrace our Federalist roots and stop trying to advance policy by judicial fiat, Supreme Court nominations would be very academic.
I think this is something we should all think about very seriously. This whole circus was a display of our deepest tribal instincts. It's time to rethink if by winning battles at all costs we will all end up losing the whole war.
When both sides accuse each other of evil intent this is what happens. We start to filter every argument with special glasses, we become irrational and incapable of hearing and conceding anything the other side has to say. Not only we wont solve problems, we will create new ones.
You articulate the problem well here, taking it back to Bork. Which is why your first tweet about Garland does not work.
I think it's simple. I presume innocence until guilt is proven. I see no preponderance of evidence to sway me from the innocent presupposition. Also, remember this ideal? I still believe it.pic.twitter.com/JT64jOxhTf
This is not a courtroom.
In no other sense across this country is this public cesspool of a process considered a "job interview" or "promotion process" either.
I'm not defending the nomination process. I'm simply reminding you that the criteria here is not that of a criminal court. - I think the US constitution is an impressive document, but it has flaws. One of them being not preventing the SCOTUS from being a partisan battleground.
I suspect the greater number on both sides consider that a feature rather than a flaw, if this spectacle is any indication.
It's destructive to the 3-way separation of powers. It'll end up being the demise of the US experiment if you don't manage to fix it. "A republic, Madam, if you can keep it."
The point remains that there is actually more supporting evidence for his innocence than guilt. Let's not forget, also, that he is completely qualified for the role based on his record, which is, I understand, considered exemplary.
I actually think I've followed the case closely, but I haven't seen the evidence you are talking about. I'm not questioning his on-the-paper qualification. I'm questioning a lot of other things things though. Including his honesty.
As the room for compromise shrinks politics approaches closer and closer to war.
That's why us folks are here. Reasonable people are going to have to build up the world again lol
That ship has sailed. Only thing to do now is choose sides or batten the hatches and try to weather the storm. Rebuilding may come later.
Well that's what I meant, after the war of course.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
