Serious Q for @rickhasen: If candidate for judicial office pledges to end controversial practice during campaign, why isn't there obligation to recuse when issue comes before court? (In case, incidentally, brought by group to which speech was made.)
-
Their argument is that they didn't have info until now. I don't know whether that's true.
-
-
I believe so.
-
so that makes this a tough argument
-
Not a situation where sandbagging seems like an obvious explanation, given that the Dem majority on the court was obvious.
-
You can judge for yourselves on his gerrymandering comments: here's the video from the 2015 candidate forum (yes, there's a transcript, but we're known for preferring video),https://youtu.be/713tnbv55mU?t=18m5s …
-
That said, we find in favor of @ssamchamfor best argument and best metaphor. Go Giants.
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.