You can publish different points of view without endorsing them. This piece is a bad, impractical idea, but its gradualism is less bad than court-packing. And you missed the part where it explicitly advances this argument as a reason to persuade people not to vote for Trump. https://twitter.com/JoshuaMZeitz/status/1315287222082506752 …
1, don't make deals trading today for tomorrow without an enforcement mechanism. Any decent lawyer knows this. 2, you act as if there's no history of deals being broken by Hill Ds. 3, if the deal's woth Biden, how does it bind his successors? A SCOTUS seat last longer.
-
-
Number one and three make sense. Sure, that’s thinking strategically, acknowledging power relationships. What it comes down to, though, is the understandable bet that you’re going to get the sixth justice for conservative projects. And while the tail risk is high, it’s just
-
that—a tail risk. If you understand the Democrstic Ostty, our inderdtx d hie much they don’t want to do this. Neither Budrn b or Schumer are gut punchers. Reid was—a match for McConnell—but he’s not they’re any more. So yeah, I’d install Barrett too. But as I always say: the
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Your own logic buys court expansion. Basically, it amounts to - use power while you have it because the other party will, too. Fine.
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.