We all know why he picked him..b/c he argued against indicting a sitting president in 2009...This is a selfish pick.
-
-
-
DoJ for decades has said this, not a Kavanaugh revelation. SCOTUS doesn’t indict, only interprets laws. That’s left to Congress to act.
-
Of course SCOTUS doesn’t indict, they are an appellate court...they could ultimately have a role to play though, akin to Nixon vs United States. Let’s hope Kennedy’s clerk considers Mueller’s investigation a higher national security risk than Clinton’s situation...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yes and next Ginsberg to be replaced ! Onward to more victories for American citizens.
-
You mean when she might be awake ... She needs to step down now. She's too old.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Nope. To close to an election per McConnell's rule. No branch of this government is more important than the other either. So, there is no exception. You stole one seat. Your not getting another. After the elections we can talk justices, right after impeachment processes

-
Lol what impeachment???pic.twitter.com/GQcYmGzUgW
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Funny that the YouTube channel to which you linked me is Russian. It's like you people don't even try to hide it anymore.pic.twitter.com/GfMlrElROv
-
Again, you're linking me to a Russian YouTube channel.


You traitors & bots are so predictable. Remember to avoid the splash zone during Trump's bukakke orgy with the Kremlin. 

pic.twitter.com/cwZ3H9aEDt
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
Forgot to add from Russia with love?
#PutinsPuppet#TrumpRussiapic.twitter.com/uhwu6bmeZAThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You disappoint me sir.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This was mass emailed to hundreds of millions of Americans inboxes literally 3 to 7 minutes after
#cavanaugh announced.. These ppl are nuts!! Wow?!pic.twitter.com/86J9XggCV3
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
you support a Prez facing criminal investigation & civil suits but you find a judge who thinks a Prez can't be investigated is qualified
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yeah, there was another "incredibly qualified and deserving" judge who should be on the Supreme Court. Oh, what was his name? Merrick.... something......... ...give me a minute...or four months......I'll think of it.......
-
Win senate majority them confirm your judges as per law
-
Was no actual law from Garland being appointed other than McConnell’s made up one.
-
Precedent was set in 1993 Biden, 2005 Daschle and 2013 Reid.
-
Biden saying something in 1992 makes it neither "law" nor precedent. Reid was stupid and selfish to change the Senate rules as it has indeed "come around." But, if precedent is important, then no consideration should be made until after the 116th Congress is set.
-
You didn’t have senate majority under Garland drama, you don’t have it now and likely worse numbers after midterms. Elections have consequences.
-
Of course I don't have "majority." The USian people haven't had "majority" in decades. Don't assume too much. But, you're right about "consequences." One could hope there would be rectification in November, but "you" know better…regardless of the outcome.
-
Senate map for Dems is worst in a generation. Likely lose 2-3 seats
- 1 more reply
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.