Skip to content
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • Moments Moments Moments, current page.

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
baseballcrank's profile
Dan McLaughlin
Dan McLaughlin
Dan McLaughlin
Verified account
@baseballcrank

Tweets

Dan McLaughlinVerified account

@baseballcrank

Senior Writer @NRO. Reaganite, Catholic, Mets fan, ex-lawyer. Opinions 100% my own, but you can share them. Not the Cardinals broadcaster.

New York
nationalreview.com/author/dan-mcl…
Joined May 2009

Tweets

  • © 2021 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. Brian Rosenwald‏ @brianros1 26 Oct 2020

      Brian Rosenwald Retweeted Dan McLaughlin

      This is absolutely untrue fwiw. I edited a piece on this very topic today. When one peaks beneath the hood of the history, it becomes clear that there is minimal precedent for this. That being said, Republicans trashing the Thurmond rule is fine by me. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/26/what-history-really-tells-us-about-putting-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court/ …https://twitter.com/baseballcrank/status/1307359668973510656 …

      Brian Rosenwald added,

      Dan McLaughlinVerified account @baseballcrank
      Yes, historical precedent supports Republicans confirming a replacement for Justice Ginsburg before the end of this year. When the president's party controls the Senate, it's been done multiple times before: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-side-of-republicans-filling-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020/ … pic.twitter.com/u57TAp54KT
      1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes
    2. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 26 Oct 2020
      Replying to @brianros1

      Bring facts showing the numbers are wrong or go home on this.

      1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes
    3. Brian Rosenwald‏ @brianros1 26 Oct 2020
      Replying to @baseballcrank

      Read the article I linked. You totally and completely ignore the change over time in the confirmation process to pull nominations from the 19th century out of their historical context to pretend they are relevant precedent for today. There have been articles on how much less

      3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
    4. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 26 Oct 2020
      Replying to @brianros1

      This is tremendously weak sauce, and leaves out very important context after hand-waving away basically the entire history.

      2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
    5. Brian Rosenwald‏ @brianros1 26 Oct 2020
      Replying to @baseballcrank

      What is weak sauce? I can link you 27 articles if you’d like. You’re presenting numbers without historical context. Here’s an article on how much weaker the Court was in the 19th centuryhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/supreme-court-politics-history/2020/09/25/b9fefcee-fe7f-11ea-9ceb-061d646d9c67_story.html?outputType=amp …

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    6. Brian Rosenwald‏ @brianros1 26 Oct 2020
      Replying to @brianros1 @baseballcrank

      I literally sat there and counted judicial confirmations in election years since 1968 for this piece:https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/09/22/fight-replace-ruth-bader-ginsburg-has-been-half-century-making/?outputType=amp …

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    7. Brian Rosenwald‏ @brianros1 26 Oct 2020
      Replying to @brianros1 @baseballcrank

      There is another relevant point: if you’re going to rely on these 19th century precedents-before the 75 year period with just one rejection & the judicial wars that start in 1968, then changing the number of justices is normal and fine too.

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
    8. Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 26 Oct 2020
      Replying to @brianros1

      Here's the thing I've explained before: if there's no norm, then power rules. At most, your argument is that there's no norm. Whereas there's a strong, at least since 1937, norm vs Court-packing. We all learned it in grade school.https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/09/historical-precedent-supports-republicans-on-supreme-court-nominations/ …

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    9. Brian Rosenwald‏ @brianros1 26 Oct 2020
      Replying to @baseballcrank

      I guess I see it this way: there are historical precedents for and against both practices. Frankly, I think the behavior of folks like Graham & Grassley make pretty clear that power rules. But I don’t think you can say that 1937 somehow supersedes those 19th century precedents &

      2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
    10. Brian Rosenwald‏ @brianros1 26 Oct 2020
      Replying to @brianros1 @baseballcrank

      Also ignore the changes in the confirmation process, & the clear assumption at least as late as ’68 that you confirm judges even in election years.

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      Dan McLaughlin‏Verified account @baseballcrank 26 Oct 2020
      Replying to @brianros1

      Assumption based on what? Zero examples of doing it thru divided govt over the prior 80 years.

      8:17 PM - 26 Oct 2020
      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. Brian Rosenwald‏ @brianros1 26 Oct 2020
          Replying to @baseballcrank

          To use your word: you had a clear precedent in 37 on Court packing. To me, Democrats willingness to acquiesce to Brennan’s recess appointment & to confirm Kennedy were just as clear precedents that no one saw this distinction between unified government & divided government. Esp.

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
        3. Brian Rosenwald‏ @brianros1 26 Oct 2020
          Replying to @brianros1 @baseballcrank

          Since if you read the Griffin letter laying out the Thurmond rule, it says it’s a hotly contested election year where a change in power is possible & that means the people should decide.

          0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. End of 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.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2021 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Cookies
        • Ads info