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 …
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
-
-
Also strong & decisive precedent from...2016 lol oh I forgot about that
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Why when you seem so bent on ignoring what this senate majority leader and judiciary chair had to say about SCOTUS appointments in the final year. If we’re applying rules the same what you said in the past against it isn’t enough so long as it is legal and there is president.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Plessy v Ferguson was a strong and decisive precedent too. Until it wasn't. Things change. Get used to it
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
is it a super-precedent? that's my favorite kind...
-
It’s political precedent, which isn’t actually precedent at all so much as a snapshot of who stood where on an issue at a certain time.
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.