Any rule, any deadline, by its nature excludes. Those who believe courts should never countenance exclusion will always argue that any rule whatsoever is the suppression of votes. https://twitter.com/AndyGrewal/status/1321490702786826245 …
-
-
I was positive conservatives believed in the 10th amendment. Boy do I have egg on my face!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Ya...the people making the fake rules to suppress votes are the ones at issue.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Why do you hate America so much?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
The Pennsylvania legislature did.
- Show replies
-
-
-
No. One rule is fine and the other is not. And why wait until five days before the election to change the rules? Because you are trying to disenfranchise voters.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
By now you should realize this argument is absurd.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
States made their rules and haven’t changed them. The GOP just doesn’t want votes to be counted.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The obvious answer to these questions, of course, is that the Supreme Court should make the rules and they should make them as soon as possible before the election, preferably by only a few days.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Since 1789 it’s been up to the states, not federal judges. I assume you’ve read the Constitution
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.