And again Chuck that's what we voted for in the last election when r u going to get it
-
-
-
Tweet unavailable
-
A win is a win
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'm an average American and you Democrats are what's wrong with America. Sit down and shut up! Everything you all touch is a disaster.
-
Chuck is on a losing team. He has been issued gov. knee pads and will continue to use them.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That's why Americans the important people are calling for a direct NO especially since the president is under investigation
-
Comey said they've been investigating Trump the eight months so far nothing because there is nothing!!pic.twitter.com/yczZcDUvXf
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
No nominations from a Potus under FBI investigation should be considered. Simple as can be!!
-
plz cry I'm thirsty
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yes! Hopefully restoring our nation to constitutional standards that have been usurped by power hungry liberals.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Hey buddy you know the saying you reap what you sow! You did this, so enjoy the division you caused!pic.twitter.com/b9n89dErks
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
We know there are important decisions, and he rules based on law, not politics. We elected Trump, and he nominated Gorsuch.
#confirmgorsuch - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I'm your constituent Senator and I stand behind you on this filibuster - the rule change will be on the GOP. Thank you for opposing Gorsuch
-
Ever heard of Harry Reid????
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Hold ur ground. Let the .
@SenateGOP sink their own ship if they go nuclear. At least u r on the right side of history#WeAreWithYou -
Party of No.

-
Garland
-
If Trump nominates Garland, the Democrats will say NO
-
Ridiculous statement
-
True statement. This is a political game. If Gorsuch was so bad why did Schumer vote yes in 2006?
-
Not 2006. 1)Garland denied 2)Pres under investigation 3)Gorsuch has proved (hobby lobby) that he does not uphold women's healthcare rights.
-
yes, 2006. July 20, 2006. Schumer voted for him. Garland denied yes, so that means no one should be SC judge?
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.