No SCOTUS vote No quorumhttps://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1035656034784825345?s=20 …
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
How does anything to do with Kavanaugh’s past tenure in the White House qualify under executive privilege?https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/executive_privilege …
-
Total RUSE to Protect DT from Meuller !
#ObstructionOfJustice#KavaNo -
Amen sister!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Then be a Maverick for
@TheDemocrats & tell@SenFeinstein@SenBooker@amyklobuchar@DickDurbin@SenWhitehouse@mazieforhawaii@ChrisCoons@SenBlumenthal@SenatorLeahy BOYCOTT the Kavanaugh Hearings! No business can be done without a quorum.#StopKavanaugh -
They need 51 which they will have after McCain's seat is filled.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
VP is a tiebreaking vote only. He presence does not reach the 51 quourun to call the Senate to order
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
As I watch the pillars of a free & just society be decimated, I don’t even recognize my country any more. I have to continually remind myself, that this is MY country, OUR country. The Regime & the GOP who support these atrocities do not deserve the title “American”.pic.twitter.com/raJT9qAjOp
-
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This is not normal! Call your Senators now at 202-224-3121 Tell them
#NoToKavanaugh until they#ReleaseTheRecords. All#Kavanaugh documents must be released.#WhatAreTheyHiding America demands transparency. Hearings begin Sept.4 - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
This misleads: Kagan's, Kavanaugh's roles not same. BMK "was responsible for coordinating *all documents* to and from the president" (emph. added). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh#Early_legal_career_(1990%E2%80%932006) … EK's positions were lower-level, didn't see every scrap of paper the president saw. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan#White_House_and_judicial_nomination …
-
Even more reason for the need to know more about Kavanaugh.
-
Will you promise to apply the same standard when a high-level Obama secretary's nomination means Republicans want to see everything that crossed Obama's desk? I recognize the fierce urgency of politics of now; but think whether you'll accept this rule when it hurts your side.
-
I'm concerned as the time period being denied release appears to be primarily during Watergate and Nixon's impeachment. Seems pertinent it looks as if current president is possible unnamed co-conspirator in Cohen's plea agreement.
-
BMK as secretary overlaps not at all with Watergate/Nixon. I agree the Cohen thing is serious—but it has nothing to do with documentary standards for nominees. If you want to oppose for Cohen, fair enough—but nothing of that legitimates an unrelated heightened doc standard.
-
To apply principled reasoning requires both sides to act in good faith, not just in their own self-interest. We certainly haven't seen that or else Merrick Garland would've been seated long ago.
-
"good faith" is a malleable standard too easily (even subconsciously) twisted to self-interest. Right standard: "Would I understand this standard if applied to me, e.g. if tables turned?" Not adversely filling a pivotal vacancy past an election meets that.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/18/former-obama-white-house-counsel-would-have-advised-blocking-scalias-replacement-if-tables-had-been-turned/ …
-
And if there's a principle here, it's transparency. The Trump administration is hiding A LOT - WH visitor logs, political donations, Trump's tax returns, illegal campaign payments - operating like an autocracy. These are people with something sketchy to hide, including BMK.
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.