Reactions to this have been so varied. It's just a "neutral rules apply neutrally" point, not a "sinister plot backfires on plotters" point.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Apparently, the Senate DID HAVE TO finally vote on a Supreme Court nominee.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I disagree. While the Senate can decide not to consider a president’s justice nomination, that right is enshrined in the Constitution. However, the Constitution doesn’t mention that the articles need to be transmitted.
-
The sole power of impeachment is in the house and they decide the rules. Stop being stupid.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Maybe they don't but the Speaker is saying they will transmit if Senate meets their/her demands. Madam Pelosi has no jurisdiction over the Senate & her demands are meaningless overreach. None of this has to do with "rules" as much as with theater.
-
Hmmm...just like the theater Madame Turtlefly is playing by stacking the courts with controllable imbeciles and ignoring bills passed by the House?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Justice Chase was impeached… then had to wait 8+ months for the articles to show up. When even sm1 who should know better, Noah Feldman, says impeachment doesn't happen till the articles show up, I wish the credentialed-yet-novices would slow their rolls.https://twitter.com/KDbyProxy/status/1208436782049775616 …
-
If Trump has been impeached, the Senate doesn't have to wait for the articles to conduct its trial.
Dems have to pick their poison here.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I won't RT a libertarian rag.
-
You won't get the chance, honey.
- Show replies
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.