Refusing to even consider another party's Supreme Court nomination 'because it occurred in the final year of a presidency' and then rushing through your own party's nomination in the final months of the next presidency is itself a form of court packing.
-
-
Principles are hackery. Noted.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Please explain!
-
Obviously the Senate would have confirmed a judge in 2016 if the Senate had been Dem or the President had been GOP. But since it was split, they said to let the people vote and speak clearly whether they want a GOP or Dem type judge.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Wow. Really dismantled his argument there, Dan.
-
Dan has already done the dismantling as have others. To say Evan has an argument is just dishonest.https://twitter.com/LJT_is_me/status/1307373442551906306?s=20 …
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Other then "we have the power so we'll do what we want" what principle do you see at play?
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Would having held a vote that had no hope of confirming Garland have made you feel better? They chose the optics of no vote over a NO vote. Deal with it.
-
Uh, yes. A vote is held. Senators are tied to their vote and accountable to their constituents. Same issue with Senators being shielded from having to actually vote on hundreds of bills that passed the House. Let them vote and chips fall where they fall.
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.