Skip to content
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • Moments Moments Moments, current page.

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
baseballcrank's profile
Dan McLaughlin
Dan McLaughlin
Dan McLaughlin
Verified account
@baseballcrank

Tweets

Dan McLaughlinVerified account

@baseballcrank

Senior Writer @NRO. Reaganite, Catholic, Mets fan, ex-lawyer. Opinions 100% my own, but you can share them. Not the Cardinals broadcaster.

New York
nationalreview.com/author/dan-mcl…
Joined May 2009

Tweets

  • © 2021 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 18 Mar 2019

    Dan McLaughlin Retweeted POLITICO

    This is the Rubicon. Cross it, and the damage to the American republic as we have known it is irreparable. We've had cries of wolf before about threats to judicial independence & the rule of law. This wolf comes as a wolf.https://twitter.com/politico/status/1107646605073760256 …

    Dan McLaughlin added,

    POLITICOVerified account @politico
    Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand said they would not rule out expanding the Supreme Court if elected president https://politi.co/2TURiXM 
    7:33 AM - 18 Mar 2019
    • 947 Retweets
    • 2,931 Likes
    • Kit1989 Katiedid shedid shedidnt Toastyest sainthardly Gordon Fenley Hunter Myers Phil Hardy Rational Policy 🇺🇲🇹🇼🇭🇰🇮🇱🇦🇫 Derby
    425 replies 947 retweets 2,931 likes
      1. New conversation
      2. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 18 Mar 2019

        Dan McLaughlin Retweeted Senator Harry Reid

        Democrats have, of course, been down this road before & lived to regret ithttps://twitter.com/SenatorReid/status/403615847190921216 …

        Dan McLaughlin added,

        Senator Harry ReidVerified account @SenatorReid
        Thanks to all of you who encouraged me to consider filibuster reform. It had to be done.
        11 replies 56 retweets 294 likes
        Show this thread
      3. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 18 Mar 2019

        I've written on the judicial nomination wars before, for those interested in the history. But this would be a drastic new step of enormous danger to the foundations of our system. https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/03/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-nominee-rejections-politics-has-lot-do-it/ … https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/it-doesnt-matter-garland-didnt-get-hearing/ … https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mclaughlin-supreme-court-vacancies-election-20180711-story.html …https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-nomination-senate-should-vote-before-midterms/ …

        2 replies 32 retweets 137 likes
        Show this thread
      4. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 18 Mar 2019

        Dan McLaughlin Retweeted

        This too https://twitter.com/ishapiro/status/1107625269240754177 …

        Dan McLaughlin added,

        This Tweet is unavailable.
        6 replies 21 retweets 132 likes
        Show this thread
      5. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 18 Mar 2019

        Dan McLaughlin Retweeted Dan McLaughlin

        Also thishttps://twitter.com/baseballcrank/status/848989509048041475 …

        Dan McLaughlin added,

        Dan McLaughlinVerified account @baseballcrank
        Fortas filibuster was 55% GOP, 44% Dem. Estrada filibuster in 2003 - led by Schumer & Reid - was the first party-line judicial filibuster. https://twitter.com/jadler1969/status/848869611315572737 …
        4 replies 16 retweets 104 likes
        Show this thread
      6. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 18 Mar 2019

        Dan McLaughlin Retweeted Chris Cornish

        We had 4 rounds of ideological Court-packing between 1807 & 1869. Directly related to that, we had a Civil War triggered in good part by the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision. Let's not do that again.https://twitter.com/CornishNJ/status/1107658330619695109 …

        Dan McLaughlin added,

        Chris Cornish @CornishNJ
        Replying to @baseballcrank @benshapiro
        Hasn’t it been done several times before? We’re all still here.
        27 replies 65 retweets 216 likes
        Show this thread
      7. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 18 Mar 2019

        6. Let's review here the history of the expansions of the Court in that period, some of which were more ideologically loaded than others. The Supreme Court was originally 6 Justices (even number - not ideal!). For both practical & ideological reasons, it was expanded to 7 in 1807

        5 replies 13 retweets 57 likes
        Show this thread
      8. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 18 Mar 2019

        7. Jefferson's effort to alter the trajectory of the Marshall Court was not notably successful. John Marshall was too good at winning new Justices over to his way of thinking. The Court stayed at 7 for 30 years.

        1 reply 8 retweets 48 likes
        Show this thread
      9. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 18 Mar 2019

        8. Judicial confirmation fights restarted in earnest in 1828, when the Senate blocked outgoing POTUS John Quincy Adams from filling a seat, leaving it for Andrew Jackson, then in 1835 when the Senate tabled Jackson's nomination of his Attorney General, Roger Taney.

        1 reply 8 retweets 39 likes
        Show this thread
      10. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 18 Mar 2019

        9. Later that year, Jackson got Taney through as Chief Justice - the role in which he would write Dred Scott. Democrats added two Justices so Jackson could make additional nominations on the way out the door to reshape the Court.

        2 replies 9 retweets 39 likes
        Show this thread
      11. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 18 Mar 2019

        10. This was an explicitly ideological project (the pro-slavery element of Jacksonianism was not the forefront issue yet in 1837, but it was an element). Jackson filled 1 of the 2 slots with Justice Catron, who joined Taney in Dred Scott.

        2 replies 9 retweets 42 likes
        Show this thread
      12. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 18 Mar 2019

        11. Jackson's effort to fill both seats - both were nominated & confirmed the last day of his term - was thwarted when South Carolina's William Smith declined to serve. Van Buren made a recess appointment (McKinley).

        2 replies 9 retweets 35 likes
        Show this thread
      13. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 18 Mar 2019

        12. McKinley's successor, Justice John Campbell, was appointed by another Democrat, Franklin Pierce. Campbell also joined Dred Scott, later resigned the Court to join the Confederacy.

        2 replies 7 retweets 35 likes
        Show this thread
      14. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 18 Mar 2019

        13. The Court-packing of 1837 did not lead directly to Dred Scott. But it was part of an ideological Jacksonian reshaping of the Court, the product of which was the Dred Scott decision. And Dred Scott was one of the major triggers for the Civil War:https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/11/john-kelly-civil-war-debate-tim-kaine-america-slavery/ …

        5 replies 16 retweets 60 likes
        Show this thread
      15. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 18 Mar 2019

        14. The subsequent rounds of expanding & contracting the Court (up to 10 in 1863, then seats eliminated so Andrew Johnson couldn't name any Justices, then back to 9 for good in 1869) were all part of the Civil War & Reconstruction, to wrest the Court away from the Dred Scott era.

        2 replies 9 retweets 42 likes
        Show this thread
      16. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 18 Mar 2019

        15. Dred Scott was a calamity that convinced much of America that the democratic process had been foreclosed. The stability of the Court at 9 since 1869 has greatly rebuilt the prestige the Court lost in 1857.

        3 replies 13 retweets 59 likes
        Show this thread
      17. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 18 Mar 2019

        16. Even FDR at the pinnacle of his power, having just won over 500 electoral votes and holding over 80% of the Senate, found that Court-packing was a step too far towards making the Court a flimsy tool of politicians for the American public to tolerate.

        6 replies 20 retweets 79 likes
        Show this thread
      18. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 18 Mar 2019

        17. The Court has always been political in various ways, but life tenure, Justices long outlasting the people who appoint them - these things sustain the Court as a separate branch. Allowing them to just be swamped whenever POTUS wants new roles is banana republic stuff.

        4 replies 19 retweets 72 likes
        Show this thread
      19. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 18 Mar 2019

        Dan McLaughlin Retweeted a left-leaning but high-quality polling outlet

        18. McElwee is reaching here (he can't point to any action ever taken by the R caucus) but even so, Senate obstruction can be fixed by the next Senate elections. Expanding the size of the Court is a permanent step. Not remotely comparable.https://twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/status/1107652774852993024 …

        Dan McLaughlin added,

        a left-leaning but high-quality polling outletVerified account @SeanMcElwee
        John McCain said in 2016: “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up.” The GOP already decided number of seats on the Court would be decided by politics, we’re just haggling over the numbers. pic.twitter.com/7B2RYTM2Jz
        8 replies 10 retweets 49 likes
        Show this thread
      20. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 18 Mar 2019

        Dan McLaughlin Retweeted b-boy bouiebaisse

        19. Bouie (does the NY Times styleguide require me to call him Bamelle Jouie?) ignores the ideological nature & context of Jackson's move by assuming I'm saying it was originally all about slavery. But rather ignores that Jackson appointed Taney.https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/1107720100721950722 …

        Dan McLaughlin added,

        b-boy bouiebaisseVerified account @jbouie
        Now, mr. craseball gets one thing right: Dred Scott set the stage for the Civil War. But his facts about “court packing” are...wrong.
        Show this thread
        1 reply 6 retweets 31 likes
        Show this thread
      21. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 18 Mar 2019

        Dan McLaughlin Retweeted Craig Calcaterra

        20. Craig simply ignores both the history preceding the Garland fight, including prior D filibusters (I started this thread linking to my prior writeups rather than rehash them here) & the drastic difference in permanently changing the size of the Court.https://twitter.com/craigcalcaterra/status/1107727740013346817 …

        Dan McLaughlin added,

        Craig CalcaterraVerified account @craigcalcaterra
        And no, I'm not getting into big debates about this. In fact I'm logging off and working out because I'm really super tired of arguing with people who think it's just swell that McConnell deprived a twice-elected president's nominee of a hearing.
        Show this thread
        4 replies 4 retweets 39 likes
        Show this thread
      22. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 18 Mar 2019

        21. Yes, we have had power struggles of increasing drama over what the Senate minority or majority can or will do with judicial nominees. But Americans rejected in 1937 the idea that the size of SCOTUS can be a politician's plaything. If we cross that, it's deeply dangerous.

        8 replies 13 retweets 55 likes
        Show this thread
      23. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 18 Mar 2019

        22. Now, I agree with @jbouie that the expansions of the Court in 1807 & 1837 were not as openly & solely ideological as what Democrats are proposing today, and were partly practical in nature. That's not a point in their favor!

        10 replies 5 retweets 43 likes
        Show this thread
      24. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 18 Mar 2019

        Dan McLaughlin Retweeted Rachel Shelden

        23. Again, I don't disagree with this thread-it covers history I've been over before & *undermines* the usefulness of the 1837 precedent for today's Dems. My main point: the ideological Jacksonian reshaping of the Court damaged it & the country.https://twitter.com/rachelshelden/status/1107741916773396481 …

        Dan McLaughlin added,

        Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden
        Each judge was assigned a circuit and spent several weeks a year trying cases at each court within the circuit. And as @jbouie pointed out, the 1837 expansion of the Court happened in large part because there was a need for new circuits to account for new states in the union. /5
        Show this thread
        3 replies 2 retweets 19 likes
        Show this thread
      25. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 18 Mar 2019

        Dan McLaughlin Retweeted Rachel Shelden

        24. Precisely! The Court as it has existed for 150 years, independent of political control, was made possible by stabilizing its size & resisting periodic efforts to break the independence Hamilton envisioned. This proposal would destroy that forever.https://twitter.com/rachelshelden/status/1107746476053225472 …

        Dan McLaughlin added,

        Rachel Shelden @rachelshelden
        But the federal courts did not have the same kind of power or prestige we give the Supreme Court in the 21st century. There was not the same adherence to a hierarchy of the judicial system as we know from great work by Laura Edwards, @marthasjones_, @arielagross and others /8
        Show this thread
        9 replies 12 retweets 43 likes
        Show this thread
      26. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 18 Mar 2019

        25. Direct political meddling was, of course, one of the causes of Dred Scott (Buchanan conspired behind the scenes with Taney), corrupting Alexander Hamilton's vision of judicial independence secured by knowing politicians couldn't just change the courts at will:pic.twitter.com/cf6hAaiT8n

        11 replies 12 retweets 36 likes
        Show this thread
      27. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 29 Mar 2019

        26. Simplest explanation for the Democrats' effort to change the meaning of the term "Court-packing" away from its historically bipartisan commonly-understood meaning: they wish to disarm the opponents of actual Court-packing of the language in which to express the concept.pic.twitter.com/1vj68wmxpX

        2 replies 1 retweet 7 likes
        Show this thread
      28. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 24 Jul 2019

        27. You know who sees Court-packing for what it is - the quickest way to destroy the Court as the guardian of the rule of law in America? Ruth Bader Ginsburg. https://www.npr.org/2019/07/24/744633713/justice-ginsburg-i-am-very-much-alive?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter …pic.twitter.com/fl6nf2A4qa

        1 reply 7 retweets 33 likes
        Show this thread
      29. End of 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.

      Promoted Tweet

      false

      • © 2021 Twitter
      • About
      • Help Center
      • Terms
      • Privacy policy
      • Cookies
      • Ads info