We can talk about Harris on issues & ideology, where she's been bad but also inconsistent. What is much more consistent is her continual willingness to break norms & disdain limits on executive powers & the rule of law. The most anti-Constitution candidate you could pick.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @baseballcrank
I dunno, he could have picked Donald Trump.
13 replies 12 retweets 727 likes -
Replying to @walterolson
She is seriously worse than Trump, and worse because she is serious. She would, in 180 degree contrast to Trump, have a tailwind of institutional Washington behind every assault on constitutional government.
222 replies 13 retweets 95 likes -
-
Replying to @MaxKennerly @walterolson
Deadly. The stakes are enormous. Harris' agenda entails permanent, irrevocable damage to the American system.
21 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank @walterolson
By changing the number of Justices (which obviously she could not personally do), which has been done several times before? Or by choosing Justices and judges with politics in mind, which is being done constantly right now?
1 reply 1 retweet 63 likes -
Replying to @MaxKennerly @walterolson
Changing the size of the Court for solely, nakedly ideological purposes. Which the nation rightly rejected as an assault on the foundations of our system in 1937. It's what banana republics do.
20 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank @MaxKennerly
Though I disagree with Dan on the wider point here, I am constantly amazed by how many Democrats and liberals take the view that the Senate's refusal to consider/confirm Garland was a constitutional breach, rather than a straightforward exercise of its advise and consent power.
2 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @walterolson @baseballcrank
If stalling to gain a Supreme Court seat for political reasons is valid, then so too is expanding the Supreme Court. Neither is prohibited by the text of the Constitution.
2 replies 0 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @MaxKennerly @walterolson
No, there is a fundamental difference between longstanding tools for the Senate to have a say in filling seats, & changing the rules for how many seats there are.https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-side-of-republicans-filling-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020/ …
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Court-packing for the purpose of changing outcomes would break the independent judiciary beyond repairhttps://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/06/24/against-the-democrats-court-packing-scheme/ …
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.