Kennedy still would've had his successor nominated by a Republican after the midterms.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What troubles me is the revelation that there two degrees of separation between Kennedy and Trump. Wouldn't that be something that the electorate would find relevant?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
We are not going to get another Libertarian like Kennedy under Trump. I will apologize if I'm wrong.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Like he even knows anything about the justices. He didn't pick this list. The dumbass loses focus reading a fortune cookie.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Especially since Kennedy voted with other conservatives most of the time, 2/3 in 5-4 cases.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Basically, McConnell stole the seat. Republicans were complete obstructionist that lead us to the nuclear option and all the rest and we'll never get over it. You were right about one thing, we will have revenge and it's depressing to me that I'm in favor of that.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
He has demonstrated he can do more than just nominate a qualified judge
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Trump did nominate a qualified justice. But should a sample size of 1 give us confidence that a truly stupid, reckless and irresponsible man will make another responsible choice? No, it shouldn't.
-
1) he nominated a large number of qualified judges to circuit & district courts (along with a few not qualified) 2) we know the list he's choosing from
-
How can we be confident that we truly know the list he's choosing from? And that no bad names will be added to the list? Trusting Trump makes no sense. None. Zero. He is not trustworthy or reasonable.
-
Because he's published it, stuck to it for For such, & most importantly we don't need to trust because if he goes off-list it'll be immediately obvious? I mean, maybe save the how can you trust him to pick a Justice argument for after he goes off list, if the risk that he'll
-
go off list is the source of your objection?
-
The source of my objection is that he's an unreasonable, reckless, untrustworthy, unprincipled man and therefore we cannot trust that he'll make a reasonable nomination for SCOTUS because he did once before, regardless of what any current short list says.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Trump is not a republican, he just used ur party to get his presidential nomination n ur party just got fooled n now destroyed morally, no matter what u say about tax cuts n job but one thing is for sure Rs chose money over morals
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They gave him a list of 25 qualified candidates. A monkey could pick one from the list without problem. So?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Is it him or is it the Federalist Society, Mitch McConnell and the Don Mahan.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In your view because he nominates conservative justices. You tend to be fair so would you support a qualified justice if that justice leaned more left?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Mitch McConnell wouldn’t allow a vote on Garland because it was an election year. Why are you being so obtuse about this? What you appear to be advocating is uncivil and that’s the reason we have Trump in the first place.
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.