Prove me wrong: We're getting such an interesting mix of cross-partisan SCOTUS decisions because court packing threats work.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I think part of being a lifetime appointee is playing the long game, and the fact that packing is even being seriously discussed has got to be worrying them. I'm not convinced it'll ultimately restrain them (or that it influenced recent decisions), but it easily could.
End of conversation
-
-
-
The possibility of court packing is part of our system of checks and balances. But all bets are off once Republicans gain control of the senate in 2023.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
We don't have a real threat of court packing right now, though.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Which case do you think would have gone differently Jeet?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
When was it unrestrained lately?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is inaccurate. The historical record showed Roberts’ jurisprudential position shifting left in 1936, a year before FDR’s expansion bid.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And that was a bad thing. I wonder how different things would be with things such as AUMF or the DEA with a more aggressive court
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is not correct. Roberts shifted left before FDR started talking about court-packing.
-
It was a prolonged back and forth -- criticism of the courts predated the court expansion and court expansion further cowed a court already in retreat. There's no question that FDR changed how the court approached things.
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.