I love being attacked by the WSJ for asking whether judicial nominees will adhere to the Constitution. But at least try to get law right. McDonald & Timbs are INCORPORATION cases. Roe, Casey etc are implied fundamental rights cases. Very different things.https://www.wsj.com/articles/josh-hawleys-bad-judgment-11551140148?emailToken=77ba4af9412b6bd7ec4119cff258584an1vD5PwqddNcAPdnnTwddj3ExglnxuTvDljZTixOAo1m4NZoot40gel+LbgNLmtUdryQFi6S0M8P9FeXUDAxAA%3D%3D&reflink=article_imessage_share …
-
-
'If we list a set of rights, some fools in the future are going to claim that people are entitled only to those rights enumerated and no others.'
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Time to obliterate Obergefell, Roe and Reynolds.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Request a one on one interview with her to help clear things up as per your due diligence. For sure such attempted bullying/railroading by the WSJ (and some others) looks bad, and that is a pretty flawed, thin, and petty write-up by the WSJ Editorial Board. You're doing your job.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
How do you feel about your benefactor president just making things up? Please ask him about specifics of his false statements. And consider before giving him an unchallenged vote.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Some out here, gets it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.