Great article!
-
-
-
Thanks, Lisa!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Out of curiosity, why did you choose Warren as your example? Any logic behind that?
-
Just an example. Could have been Kamala Haris.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
How many innocent people will be hurt in between? I know this is crazy, but every now and then I think, what if both members of both parties voted for people whose primary concern was what would be in the best interests of the American people? Silly, I know.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You mention Miguel Estrada in your article. Harry Reid didn't even let him have a vote for 2 years because "he is Latino" and they didn't want Bush to advance a Latino conservative jurist.
-
Bork, Estrada, Alito... Each without precedent. At least McConnell could point to a precedent. And he was transparent about it. At the time he said both parties lacked consistency. But unilateral disarmament is suicide.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"Nevertheless, replacing Justice Kennedy will come with a cost. Things are about to get even uglier. The understandable reaction of Democrats will be to seek vengeance. This is a vicious cycle, and there’s no telling where (or if) it will end." Great article, and so true.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
A frustrating article,
@mattklewis, because you offer no hint of a solution. For example, some suggested that the GOP should have announced "we're going operate under the no-filibuster rule for exactly the same number of days Obama/Dems did, then restore it." But... -
But there is no reason to believe Democrats wouldn't IMMEDIATELY go back to Reid Rule and grab all the power they could. This is entirely a "Left" problem. If the Right had the metaphysical ability to return to 60-vote rule, it would. So why right "race to the bottom?"
-
It's not a "Race to the bottom." It's a chase to the bottom. The Right is chasing the Left. If the Left stopped and turned around, the Right would do. But unilateral disarmament is stupid.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
It’s the newest entry in the “extreme sport” game of partisan one-upsmanship & the heck with the country.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Sooner or later you may want to let go of the Bork matter. Exactly one person who voted against him remains in the Senate.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Mutually Assured Court-Packing is now assured. By 2065, SCOTUS will have more judges than seats in the House of Representatives.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Very thoughtful. The entire norm violating episode on Robert Bork could have been avoided had the norm against pot smoking been broken. Then Douglas Ginsberg could have served.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Spot on!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
the temperature on SCOTUS will be turned way down once states get to fully regulate abortion law again. that's really what this is all about. remove Roe, either formally or by making Casey unrestricted, and we get out of this mess.
-
Disagree. It's much more than abortion. Next on the list for the right wing is rolling back recognition of gay marriage. You just watch.
-
I really don’t think so, and I say that as someone who is for state powers on both issues. The intensity on abortion is much higher. Evidence: where is the giant “March for Marriage” every year in DC?
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.