President Trump just announced Brett Kavanaugh as his nominee to the Supreme Court. One thing’s already clear from his record: He can’t be trusted to safeguard rights for women, workers or to end the flow of corporate money to campaigns.
-
-
Tell your senators to hold the line. Tell them to refuse to hold a hearing. Tell them not to confirm anyone until after the midterm elections – when we can recommend a bipartisan nominee. Call, and don’t stop calling. There’s too much at stake not to raise your voice right now.
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Fight back my Senator! a seat was stolen + Democrats should stand up + fight back! No to
#Kavanaugh We might lose, in fact it's likely, but if we don't fight we'll just go down cringing. Lead us in this fight! It's a good one, for the America we want to be. Let's go! -
Also, any Justice on the Court will be called upon to rule upon actions compelling the President or his appointees to perform duties under the law. Will Coach K enable the interpretation of the King, er, President, against such, or uphold the law against the Executive Power?
-
How sweeping are the Executive powers? Every Senator seems to err on enhancing such power mostly bc they want such when they're President. Perhaps it's hopeful when one makes meaningful moves against it, like voting against a SJC bc they're for it. That wld B nice + refreshing
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Please
@SenGillibrand, I trust you much more than@SenSchumer on this: do MORE than just give a speech and vote no. Help organize disruptive opposition to this process. Fight dirtier than McConnel did. Go as low as they have gone. Please.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You need to listen better, because you are clueless and are so lost, why so many are
#WalkWay#WalkAwayCampaignpic.twitter.com/Oj1FTDOqjP
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
You know this really isn't a thing, right? (Rhetorical)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
Voting no on ANY nominee & making that decision before a nominee was even offered suggests political pandering. Take a stance but please base it on a review of the nominee rather than partisan politics. Republican or Democrat, Americans deserves better from their representatives.
-
She stated several reasons. Were ALL of them “partisan” to you? Including the one where Trump’s administration is under investigation and SCOTUS may have to weigh in?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Also, the president shouldn't be choosing justices while under investigation.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Trump's SCOTUS pick more than ever highlights that the ONLY thing that matters is having the votes, whether in Congress, or in the Electoral College. Anything else may feel good, or help at the margin, but only political power counts. Dems must win in November.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That's the right goal, but the wrong reason! Don't legitimize Mitch excuse for violating of the constitution. Block the confirmation because Trump's under investigation. Block it because of election interference. Block it to correct for the stolen seat.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Our voices were heard! We voted! Obama had two, it's our turn, the voters said so!pic.twitter.com/RukoJtKGnb
-
So, I guess then you would agree that since Obama was STILL president when Justice Scalia passed away & was president for still another 8 mo after his pick, Garland should’ve been confirmed? Obama was voted for a presidential term of 4 years...not 3. Yet, GOP blocked his pick.
-
Presidential election year so no!
End of conversation
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.
