Which reminds us that Barrett is here because voters gave Republicans an expanded Senate majority in 2018.https://twitter.com/McCormackJohn/status/1315668382612684802 …
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Apparently, some guy named Lincoln had “hang ups” as well.
wait what? Mazie Hirono just said that the current process is "illegimate"
Dan, you're playing games about what underlying principle you're articulating here. If you're going to do that, at least spare us the phony sanctimony.
I'm literally arguing that the decision who to nominate was affected by elections, which were decided by voters. That did not used to be such a rage-inducing thing to say.
No hangup. Just a realization that one election in a body that only elects a third of its members every two years does not necessarily reflect the opinion of an entire county at that time.
Elections have consequences.
So if the Dems win the senate, house, and presidency, and pass a law that adds justices to the Supreme Court and use this exact argument your response would be what?
I’m just saying it’s a lot more gray than “they have the power and law on their side.” There’s also just common sense and precedent and those things do matter, and it’s exactly what the GOP will be screaming if the Dems gain power and add justices.
Gotcha. So if Dems win the Presidency and the Senate, it's totally fine for them to change the court size then. Because they would have received votes to take the Senate and actions are affected by who wins elections. Good to know you will have no objections
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.