"If you play by the rules and win, we will change the rules."https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1307329124541894657 …
-
-
Dan, is your assessment that the left won't dare try? Or that a GOP minority could keep this from happening?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Precisely. Also people forget that Abe Lincoln packed the court and then the R congress reduced the number to 7 under A Johnson. Changing the number of justices is fully contemplated by the constitution itself in that it left this detail to congress.
- Show replies
-
-
-
Lincoln added a seat in 1863; the Republican Congress, also for naked political reasons, reduced the court to 7 justices. It’s a matter of statute; it’s fully within the law and our system to change the number of justices. And it will be fully justified if McConnell pulls this
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
One party rule then was, in fact, *not* one party rule as we understand it today—nor, therefore, was partisanship the same. There were, effectively, three parties, including the segregationist Democrats. So that power was undercut.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
1. Right now is the new “peak era” of autortian rule around the world, & its not Dems doing. 2. Democrats of the 1930’s as now, were too concerned about norms. When now, we have a conservative party that expressly applies said norms only when they objectively suit them.
-
What’s interesting is if you put today’s party alinement on 1930’s politics, most of the people opposing FDR’s court packing would not be ij his party now. They’d be with Mitch and Donnie, cheering on selective enforcement to own the libs.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.