@espinsegall @Profepps I'll have to wait to see why, but curious why it wouldn't be retroactive - it's not like it's a clear rule for "life"
-
-
Replying to @kkaplan
@kkaplan@espinsegall no background rule. Only the wording of any amendment would matter.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @espinsegall
@espinsegall@Profepps where was that promise written?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @espinsegall
@espinsegall@kkaplan@Profepps Yeah, I've mixed emotions on it+whether just SC or lower cts too, but sure can't retroactively yank them.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bmaz
@bmaz@espinsegall@Profepps the word life isn't mentioned. Their interpretation isn't binding. Especially for the originalists.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kkaplan
.
@kkaplan@bmaz@espinsegall the people could change it retroactively by amendment but probably wouldnt. See Amends XIX, XXII4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Profepps
@Profepps@bmaz@espinsegall oh, ok - I don't think the XIX should have been necessary. But that's a very different issue.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@kkaplan @bmaz @espinsegall Sorry I mean XVII, which did not oust current members of Senate.
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.