You're getting cross-partisan decisions because SCOTUS needs 4 votes for certiorari, and so all cases that come up will necessarily have a mix of support for Rs and Ds.
-
-
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
The proof is that this makes no sense if the threat isn’t credible. And right now, the threat of court packing does not even approach credibility.
-
Only time (maybe a lot of it) will tell, but it's possible Roberts wants to forestall that credible threat. It's a very popular idea among progressives now and will get increasingly so and with more and more people if they just strike down everything they'd maybe like to.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Who has threatened court packing? And I don't think that the behavior of R-appointed justices has significantly changed over time.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Which would presumably mean that more overtly partisan decisions are in store as soon as Dems lose their razor thin majority in the Senate?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Are any of these cases necessarily on polarized issues? I’m not sure we’d necessarily expect a different alignment on the cases so far in the absence of political pressure.
-
I regret using "necessarily" twice
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Lot's of people weighing in with these kinds of takes just a tad prematurely
-
They're gonna jinx it aren't they
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.
Senior Fellow, Progressive Policy Institute.