Kamala Harris, talking about the history of flatly discriminatory treatment of black voters, unintentionally makes the case for an originalist interpretation of the 14th & 15th Amendments, without fear or favor, which the Court failed to apply for many years.
-
-
Harris rather obviously is framing these questions specifically to get Barrett to not answer them.
Show this thread -
Harris now wants judges to arbitrate questions of climate science.
Show this thread -
Barrett points out that Harris is trying to leap from an uncontroversial to a controversial point.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Not updating the data in the preclearance formula from early-70s numbers has to be one of the greatest self-owns of the 2009-2011 Dem majority in both houses
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Wait, I thought ACB wanted courts to defer to the political branches. How is “give us a good reason” deferential?
-
The preclearance req. in Section 5 was subject to the coverage formula in Section 4(b). That coverage formula was obsolete, based on decades-old data. Thus, when Section 4(b) was struck down, the application of Section 5 became dependent on a new formula from the legislature.
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.