And now we brilliantly segue into my next tweetstorm, on the hysteria that has gripped the left, and the triumph that has gripped the right, as a result of Anthony Kennedy's retirement: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/06/28/behold-the-priest-kings-of-the-future-supreme-court/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f962164e9452 … Okay, maybe that segue wasn't brilliant. Maybe it was really boring.
-
Show this thread
-
It's the curse of a writer: not every transition can be a fabulous, glittering thing. Moving onward.
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
The questions on this column came from two directions.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
One consisted of saying "You're right, of course, that it's not healthy to be investing so much in Supreme Court nominations. And the other guys should totally stop their blatant, hypocritical attempt to jam their legislative preferences on the public through the courts."
2 replies 1 retweet 9 likesShow this thread -
"But of course you can't expect us to step back from gun rights/abortion/free association/gay marriage/free speech/campaign finance reform/etc. Those rights are too important to leave to the legislatures!" To which I say: guys.
1 reply 2 retweets 19 likesShow this thread -
I too have my share of issues that I feel are sacred. And in my defense, many of the rights I think are sacred are pretty carefully enumerated in the constitution, unlike (sorry, equal protection fans) abortion and gay marriage.
7 replies 5 retweets 21 likesShow this thread
Do you think the personhood of corporations is carefully enumerated in the constitution?
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet @asymmetricinfo
New York Times v Sullivan on the chopping block. Today of all days, to attack journalism like this.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.