U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
Roberts is always so concerned with the perceived legitimacy of the courts, but that's at risk only because Republican appointees—such as Roberts—have so frequently broken with precedent and moved so far to the right. How about just not doing that?https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/480799-warren-puts-justice-roberts-in-awkward-spot-with-supreme-court-legitimacy …
The Roberts court's whole game is about breaking hard right from centuries of precedent. Take Heller, NFIB v. Sebelius, Citizens United, Shelby County, Janus. Those five verdicts were all massive rightward jumps and have basically rewritten huge swaths of existing law.
They weren't even coy about it. The Federalist Society's whole point was to stack the judiciary and ram through far right jurisprudence—views that were way outside the mainstream (ahem "textualism") and scoffed at by most Republicans even.
You used to hear Republicans throw around the phrase "activist judge" as an epithet, but now they love it since they were able to stack the judiciary with far right whackos. Hell, conservative luminary George Will is now a full on convert.https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/george-wills-embrace-judicial-activism-ed-whelan/ …
Speaking of stacking the judiciary, I think of this so often and it's just so bad.https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/07/jimmy-carter-diversity-judges-donald-trump-court-nominees.amp …
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.
