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).
-
-
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 -
-
-
Why is it only the Dems' actions that can be dangerous. If rage about Garland causes Pres Sanders to expand the court and leads to civil unrest and calamity isn't it fair to say McConnell's action was dangerous?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But the popularity of the new extremist Ds show how much those running for POTUS like to play with fire. Thanks for the thread
@baseballcrank. We have been warned.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Why? Presumably if it’s so deeply dangerous, they’ll reject it again. Duh.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
1937 will lead us in 2020? No. “The times, they are a changing.... “ always.
-
Ignoring history is a very bad idea.
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.