@mjs_DC @Slate @daveweigel Thanks. I'm aware of all of this. Your tweet, however, stated that defending bans is doing their job.
-
-
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@chrisgeidner@Slate@daveweigel Indeed! But I never implied that NOT defending the bans=not doing their job. It's one way of doing the job.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mjs_DC
@mjs_DC@Slate@daveweigel Right, and I think there is an argument to be made at this point that defending bans is not doing their jobs.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@chrisgeidner@Slate@daveweigel I'd read that piece.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mjs_DC
@mjs_DC@Slate@daveweigel The argument has been made already, by Govs. Sandoval and Corbett, among others.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@chrisgeidner@Slate@daveweigel Well, Sandoval cited the 9th Circuit's heightened scrutiny standard, and Corbett cited taxpayer expense.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mjs_DC
@mjs_DC@Slate@daveweigel And both cited the likely outcome of the case, which I think easily could be argued anywhere.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@chrisgeidner@Slate@daveweigel Even the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mjs_DC
@mjs_DC@Slate@daveweigel I think it could be argued easily anywhere in the country, yes.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@chrisgeidner Well, fair enough. I think any AG *could* say Windsor slays state bans. But I wouldn't criticize an AG who declines to do so.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.