Interesting. So, can you explain how this would violate Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2?
Sad day for the Senate. But sadder what this means for constitutional law going forward.
-
-
-
That wasn't my point. Not saying nuclear option unconstitutional. I'm talking about what happens w J. Gorsuch on Court.
-
And what would that be?
-
Left-Leaning justices will be less able to read policies they favor into the Constitution, ex nihilo, via the "Living Document" doctrine.
-
Quite true
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
IMO, what this means is that SCOTUS will no longer be legitimate - which means the U.S. govt. is also no longer legitimate.
-
The question for me now isn't whether there will be another U.S. Civil War, but how soon?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
What do you think about the idea of Dems increasing # of SCOTUS justices at some point?
-
Seems GOP already set precedent that Court sizes are flexible, w SCOTUS at 8 for > yr, attempt to shrink D.C. Circuit.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I don't understand. It was to conservatives' advantage to do it. So we did. Isn't that the rule?
-
No, no, no! The rule is "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Filibuster used to be once a year thing. GOP broke it. Like nearly everything GOP always puts party before country.McCain & Graham are proof
-
Since the filibuster is not part of the Constitution, but a creation of the Senate, it can be eliminated by the Senate
-
Exactly. The Constitution will survive.
-
This was a affirmation of the Constitution 1/5/2
-
Harry Reid is now a conservative hero. Thanks Harry for this gift.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Constitutional law never meant anything in white supremacist AmeriKKKa.
- 1 more reply
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.