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.
-
-
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 -
-
-
How is 5 D + 5 R + 5 internal nominations "solely ideological"?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Americans rejected the idea in 1937. That was almost 100 years ago. I think we r ready to gauge public sentiment again.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You’re not getting this. It’s not about doing it—it’s about threatening it to move a very conservative SCOTUS to the left on some key issues. (Otherwise, say, the VRA, despite 15th amendment protection, completely disappears.) If it actually happened, red states would nullify.
-
I think precipitating a constitutional crisis in which states seriously consider nullifying SCOTUS decisions is a bad road to go down and one whose history is not encouraging.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I truly love the idea that you believe this is the rubicon but McConnell not even allowing a confirmation hearing was ok... What must it be like to be so utterly craven and unaware?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.