17. The Court has always been political in various ways, but life tenure, Justices long outlasting the people who appoint them - these things sustain the Court as a separate branch. Allowing them to just be swamped whenever POTUS wants new roles is banana republic stuff.
-
Show this thread
-
Dan McLaughlin Retweeted a left-leaning but high-quality polling outlet
18. McElwee is reaching here (he can't point to any action ever taken by the R caucus) but even so, Senate obstruction can be fixed by the next Senate elections. Expanding the size of the Court is a permanent step. Not remotely comparable.https://twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/status/1107652774852993024 …
Dan McLaughlin added,
a left-leaning but high-quality polling outletVerified account @SeanMcElweeJohn McCain said in 2016: “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up.” The GOP already decided number of seats on the Court would be decided by politics, we’re just haggling over the numbers. pic.twitter.com/7B2RYTM2Jz8 replies 10 retweets 49 likesShow this thread -
Dan McLaughlin Retweeted b-boy bouiebaisse
19. Bouie (does the NY Times styleguide require me to call him Bamelle Jouie?) ignores the ideological nature & context of Jackson's move by assuming I'm saying it was originally all about slavery. But rather ignores that Jackson appointed Taney.https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/1107720100721950722 …
Dan McLaughlin added,
1 reply 6 retweets 31 likesShow this thread -
Dan McLaughlin Retweeted Craig Calcaterra
20. Craig simply ignores both the history preceding the Garland fight, including prior D filibusters (I started this thread linking to my prior writeups rather than rehash them here) & the drastic difference in permanently changing the size of the Court.https://twitter.com/craigcalcaterra/status/1107727740013346817 …
Dan McLaughlin added,
Craig CalcaterraVerified account @craigcalcaterraAnd no, I'm not getting into big debates about this. In fact I'm logging off and working out because I'm really super tired of arguing with people who think it's just swell that McConnell deprived a twice-elected president's nominee of a hearing.Show this thread4 replies 4 retweets 39 likesShow this thread -
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.
8 replies 13 retweets 55 likesShow 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!10 replies 5 retweets 43 likesShow this thread -
Dan McLaughlin Retweeted Rachel Shelden
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 …
Dan McLaughlin added,
Rachel Shelden @rachelsheldenEach judge was assigned a circuit and spent several weeks a year trying cases at each court within the circuit. And as@jbouie pointed out, the 1837 expansion of the Court happened in large part because there was a need for new circuits to account for new states in the union. /5Show this thread3 replies 2 retweets 19 likesShow this thread -
Dan McLaughlin Retweeted Rachel Shelden
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 …
Dan McLaughlin added,
Rachel Shelden @rachelsheldenBut the federal courts did not have the same kind of power or prestige we give the Supreme Court in the 21st century. There was not the same adherence to a hierarchy of the judicial system as we know from great work by Laura Edwards,@marthasjones_,@arielagross and others /8Show this thread9 replies 12 retweets 43 likesShow 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
11 replies 12 retweets 36 likesShow 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
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likesShow 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
-
-
Replying to @baseballcrank
I wonder if she sees McConnell’s decision to not advise and consent on Merrick Garland’s nomination in the same way. Both are Constitutional and both inject partisanship into the court’s composition.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.