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.
-
-
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.
Show this thread -
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!Show this thread -
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 …
Show this thread -
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 …
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Selective. Norm. Enforcement. If you can scrape together a historical precedent for what McConnell did, then his actions are right and good and virtuous and non-Rubico-crossing. If there's a historical precedent for Dems to expand the court...something something slavery civil war
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I've been in these fights before. A) conservs lie about what Biden said (he said wait until after election but BEFORE new Cong to fill a late-term vacancy, B) re Bork: Presidents sound out Senate to see which noms can get confirmed , 1/
-
For better or worse, Pres Reagan picked that fight and you can say it was for better - that he lost battle but won the war, C) Did I just see some arg made about previous noms not even being subject to filibuster? 2/
- Show replies
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.