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
-
-
We used to nominate and vote on people the same day. Going back in history doesn't really prove anything except they did things differently back then. Why didn't anyone filibuster the vote? It was different back then and that makes the relevance quite low.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don't concede it because I don't know the record of the Tyler Administration, but since you mischaracterized the Fortas case, I'm not planning to take your graph's word for it.
-
Mischaracterized how? Bipartisan filibuster, Democrat-controlled Senate, major ethical problems. The history is well-known.
- 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.