2. We have, however, seen an almost complete evaporation in both parties of the norm that presidents should get SCOTUS nominees confirmed by Senators who disagree with those nominees' philosophy, absent some other justification.
-
-
Show this thread
-
3. What that means the first time a president & Senate of different parties face off again outside a presidential election year, nobody knows. But probably a replay of Bork/Ginsburg or Haynesworth/Carswell, where the 1st few choices are shot down.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
But then what does this mean? Individual members of the Senate still have to confirm the nominee. What if a Republican controlled Senate doesn't like who the Democratic President appoints?
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
dems tried to fillibuster Gorsuch
#sadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The only precedent for this was set by the left. Just like these nonsense character attacks during confirmation hearings when they disagree on policy. Expect that to play out when the seats flip and the left will cry at the unfair treatment.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
-
-
It's going to be awkward trying to square this statement with McConnell's shameless rhetorical contortions in 2021 that you'll feel pressured to defend
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@baseballcrank There was no precedent for what was done with Garland. None. Period. The “Biden rule” was not the same.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.