This is specious. It’s a catalogue without historical context and logic. Just as Ike needed the legitimacy of re-election to earn the Brennan confirmation, so too does Trump *and even more so* because his party might lose the Senate too! But fine do it. 1/2
-
-
Are there any instances of a party controlling the Senate and WH holding off on confirming their nominee to give the other party a chance after an election?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And they were right not to! There is now an election in six weeks. Six weeks is not six months. Nor is there an effort here as in the case of Hoover. If you wish to appoint a partisan justice (as both parties now do), and you don’t give a shit about an election that could change
-
control of *both branches*, you’re just saying power is its own justification. Forget thre rest. And that’s fine. Because you’re a minority of the country, and if power is it’s own justification, you will ultimately lose because, as Gamiktin and Kuncoln understood, majorities
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
If precedent, as a catalogue of political events, holds so much weight, then there is precedent for everything you fear and oppose, including changing the number of justices and number of states. And So again—use the framework of laws/rules/norms as you see fit. As will others.
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.