2. It never ceases to amaze me how Democrats during these hearings will talk about anything & everything but the actual job of judges, which is deciding what written law means.
-
-
Show this thread
-
3. And yet, without judges faithful to text, the job of legislators is meaningless. Why have a job writing laws for a living if you don't expect judges to take what you wrote seriously?
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
ACA didn't violate the constitution. That the GOP considers expanding health care access unconstitutional is a significant reason why conservatives are no longer capable of building majority coalitions and have to rely on anti-majoritarian institutions for political power.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
My premiums, and those of a lot of people I know, doubled or tripled under ACA. I guess they went to pay the bill for people like Krystyna. Not sure if that makes me feel better or worse.
-
But but but repeal and replace... but but Trump will do great things for healthcare. 4 years later... LOL
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
How could Any Federal healthcare plan that governs healthcare plans not sold over state lines be Constitutional, per an originalist interpretation? How can the ACA or *any law* be stricken as unconstitutional, per originalism, when Judicial Review is nowhere in the Constitution?pic.twitter.com/y0VObLzAXC
-
But the
#9thAmendment ruins simple interpretations, the#UnenumeratedRights have to be intuited out. And so then why not#healthcare.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
After democrats pack the court it will be constitutional. See how that works?
-
If you like civil wars, that will be a good strategy.
- Show replies
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.