Legal is the first step. It's also supported by historical precedent. Of course you can have legal things that are also dangerous to the rule of law (Trump has done some of them). Confirming Barrett is the opposite of that, which is why you're going after Trump instead.https://twitter.com/dandrezner/status/1316112908292706304 …
-
-
Wait...Sotomayor was appointed by Obama...
-
To SCOTUS, yes.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Was it that long ago? Seems like yesterday.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thank you for saying apples are oranges. Prof. Drezner was referring to their Supreme Court picks, not the Appeals Court.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
It wasn't a sex scandal. It was perjury.
End of conversation
-
-
-
Diff being Clinton actually had an impeachment trial complete with witnesses and evidence, this sham Senate did none of that and went straight to a vote smdh
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
That's also 6 days before impeachment of Clinton was even initiated. You didn't know that the release of the Starr report was not the equivalent of Clinton being impeached?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Is it improper to deny dozens of appointments for reasons that are openly and purely political, if the President has NOT been impeached and has most of a year left in their duly elected term? Asking for my friend Merrick.
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.