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.
-
-
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 -
-
-
A political structure that only represented wealthly constituents......hmmmmmm.......but maybe you’re right it was only the judges
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It is weird that you completely ignore McConnell's shenanigans with Scalia's seat, other than the rt where you downplay it. Also, if you're really debating the appropriate size of the court, i think there's a very good argument it should be at least 15 justices and maybe even 1/
-
Like a circuit court where there can be 7 or 9 justices to hear and then they can petition for en banc after that. Adds a layer to the appeals process but it would likely reverse the current trend of the Court hearing fewer and fewer cases every term.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think you make some factual points but not a lot of relevant ones. I think the court is a more polarizing issue now. Whether it was Ds fault for blocking DC Appeals is something I can accept. We need to come together and fix this. The Court is seen as a partisan institution.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Hamilton’s vision, if it ever existed, is long gone. We have ideologically sorted parties now who appoint judges accordingly. If anything, Rs took this much further than Dems by eschewing O’Connor/Kennedy types at this point. (Notice Pam Karlan on the Court? Didn’t think so.)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
“Politicians couldn’t change the court at will.” Except for the full 422 days SCOTUS sat with 8 justices on the whims of a single politician. But whatever Mitch does doesn’t really count, right? He’s on the level and plays by the rules?
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Hi you can read it here: Thread by
@baseballcrank: "This is the Rubicon. Cross it, and the damage to the American republic as we have known it is irreparable. We've had cri […]" https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1107651163447533569.html … Have a good day.
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.