Well, the nominations have been delayed at rare times (i.e. Lincoln in 1864) but that too was for political reasons (not to mention that the Senate was out of session)
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Are you saying Republicans were unintelligible in 2016?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But he hates it so it can’t be “legit”
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks for the clarity Dan - there is literally no precedent for the President NOT to move forward with this!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The air of professorial impartiality Drezner maintains for his opinions is a lot fouler than he understands.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Historically, we’ve never expanded the number of SCOTUS seats in an attept to ideologically rewrite the Court Not even when the brand new Republican Party under Lincoln had the ability to do so, and the “Dred Scott” Court to do it to History, it’s “hard"
End of conversation
-
-
-
You’re aware that both Trump and Barret said Obama shouldn’t be able to replace Scalia, yes? What on earth are you talking about that there’s no reason to think Barret sees it as illegitimate. She said it shouldn’t happen literally the last time this situation happened.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
They've called every GOP nomination "illegitimate," for any little reason they can think of

- 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.