The constitution leaves to congress to decide the number of justices on the court. How is the possibility of Congress passing a law changing this number, as it has done many times in the past, “...taking a sledgehammer to the system itself.”?
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Who’s got a sledgehammer? Bradley just described the current sledgehammer. It doesn’t have to be an “official government act” to have the effect of burning the system down. In fact, it’s arguably worse due to its nebulousness.
-
Trump is temporary stacking the courts is permanent. If Democrats do it so will Republicans when it's their turn at bat. You won't be happy about it then.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Cabinet appointments that never seem to be confirmed by Senate. How many IGs have been removed? Complete disregard of Emoluments Clause. Portland. USPS. The above all seem to be sledgehammers to me. Or am I off base
@BradMossEsq ?Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I rarely find you persuasive, but this seems like working to be wrong. The idea that lost public faith in government can be fixed in a moment but laws passed through the appropriate channels can never be corrected is absurd.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Harris made the suggestion you’re upset about. In 2016, Trump said his opponent should be jailed, said women should be punished for abortions, etc. In the end, none of them are likely. Trump has been a foreign and domestic sledgehammer since he took office, and you know this.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
sledgehammer? is that code?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
sickle, much?
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.