If you actually think that, we disagree on the "all the things" point.
-
-
Replying to @chrisgeidner
maybe *your* headlines because you admirably report on all the things that should matter. I'm talking undisputed blockbusters.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MikeSacksEsq @chrisgeidner
Abortion, religion, guns, LGBT, voting rights, campaign finance, arbitration (yes, arbitration!).
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MikeSacksEsq @chrisgeidner
sure, there are cases here and there in those categories (oh, affirmative action, too!) that aren't 5-4 ideological splits.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MikeSacksEsq @chrisgeidner
but those issues are shorthand for the 5-4 cases that make
#SCOTUS the storm center of US politics every June and conf hearing1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MikeSacksEsq
Right, but I think pretending that those are the only issues — from someone like you — is hurtful to good discussion of ...
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner @MikeSacksEsq
... what the court actually does. Those things are true and do matter to an understanding of the ups and downs of nominations!
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
point very well taken, but my acknowledging the "is" does not preclude my championing the "ought." And you know I do both.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MikeSacksEsq @chrisgeidner
my meta-point in our back-and-forth here: please be more charitable, especially when you have reason to be.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @MikeSacksEsq @chrisgeidner
it makes the resulting exchange, like the one we're having, much more effective when it starts with expectation of good faith.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
I think your statement is wrong. I don't think it's any statement of "bad faith" in my disagreeing with it.
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.