These folks will spend years arguing that Trump absolves them from ever caring about the rule of law again.https://twitter.com/radleybalko/status/1293362407260262402 …
-
-
So attempts to rule by executive order and extort foreign governments for personal gain are less of a threat than changing the number of supreme court justices? The latter has been done several times and republicans can do the same. The former, well, that's dictatorship in being.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Marick Garland. That's what they'll say as justification. You'll explain how that's different. Then when the next GOP president wins and appoints 2 more you'll say it's OK now because they did it first.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Is Trump bad on the rule of law?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Sooo just so I am clear, your “hill” is basically that President Trump has not violated as many norms of our Constitutional form of government as FRanklin Delano Roosevelt? FDR was a “Rubicon crosser,” compared to Trump, right? Just trying to make this crystal clear.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
A week ago he suggested “postponing” the election.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
1801, 1807, 1837, 1863, 1866, 1869. The number of justices on the court have changed many times Dan. Up, and Down. Which, means it is neither radical nor irrevocable. You just don’t like it.
-
Changing the number of justices according to constitutionally prescribed methods literally = rule of law.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Rise of the Warrior VP How I learned to stop worrying and love the police
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.