The rules for the voters of the Supreme Court game,, have been pretty clear for 150 years: *9 seats, life tenure *Win presidential elections, you get to make nominations *Win Senate elections, you get to confirm or stop them *Divided government, you fight, maybe you compromise
-
-
"Advise and consent" means what, now? But I am very interested in the secret Constitution you are reading from. Sounds neat-o.
-
They refused their consent. Not hard to understand
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Conveniently missing here is when the vacancies occurred and when the nomination was presented
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"You fight, maybe you compromise" is not what I'm hearing from the GOP Senate. They're saying divided govt, no vote. Period. Which is, of course, both absurd and ahistorical. Here's a nice take down of your piece and the GOP rationale:https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/09/24/mcconnells-fabricated-history-to-justify-a-2020-supreme-court-vote/ …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Miers replacement was confirmed Ginsburg and Bork replacement was confirmed Haynsworth and Carswell replacement was confirmed Fortas and Thornberry was replaced by the NEXT President and they were withdrawn in October. Parker replacement was confirmed. SO ONLY case was in 1968.
-
I actually learned some history. Exceptionally rare for a nomination to not be filled by the same President. If Kavanaugh had been defeated then another Trump appointee would have been confirmed. The country wouldn't even notice the difference.
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.