-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Makes perfect sense when you decide Rule of Law has the unspoken caveat of “as ideologues we like determine it to mean”
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's pretty wild to declare that the two ideas are mutually exclusive, given the evidence of the past few years, where certain judges have exercised interpretations of law that could be charitably characterized as displaying the flexibility of a Cirque du Soliel acrobat.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
there won't be a judiciary if American becomes Russia-lite; which is the path we are on today. Trying to justify not voting for Biden in order to protect judges is basically nonsense.
-
What the hell do you think you’re talking about?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think the intent is to substantively abolish the constitutional protections that give rise to the rule of law, which is an intent shared by Barr, Trump and Putin.
-
Which protections are those?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
His red line is whatever lets him unequivocally support Trump while still pretending to be above it all. All the anti-anti-Trump people are like this, they just wanted to hang with the cool kids
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A good example of someone who has lost focus...:(
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I’m sure he has no issue with how Mitch has handled judicial nominations since 2015, but yet his wild fears of what Kamala would do to the process as VP are totally valid for voting for an aspiring authoritarian. Cool cool.
- 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.


