Profile picture
, 3 tweets, 1 min read
My Authors
Read all threads
OH OH I KNOW!

[deep breath]

To constitutionalize your policy preferences behind an ostensibly neutral methodology designed to further conservative ideology and rhetorically render illegitimate any other method of interpretation that may lead liberal results.
In other words,
Just own it, people
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Enjoying this thread?

Keep Current with Mike Sacks

Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MikeSacksEsq see all

Profile picture
Mike Sacks
@MikeSacksEsq
Trump judge rules against Trump (on jurisdictional grounds)
Background from @ZoeTillman: over the summer, Judge Nichols had hoped the three parties—Trump, House Ways and Means Committee, New York—could work out a solution rather than force him to make the decision for them. But they couldn’t:
At the time some people were confused as to why Judge Nichols even entertained having NY/House work out a deal to restrain themselves. To which my answer was
Read 5 tweets
Profile picture
Mike Sacks
@MikeSacksEsq
OK, my best stab at what's going on here....
1) The House isn't going to court to enforce its impeachment subpoenas not only in the interest of time, but also bc it doesn't want to risk a judge (and, ultimately, SCOTUS) either (a) clipping Congress's impeachment powers or (b) refusing to get involved
2) The White House wasn't going to go to court to fight the impeachment subpoenas because, per that same tweet above, it doesn't want to risk a judge (and, ultimately, SCOTUS) super-expediting (a) an order to comply or (b) refusing to get involved
Read 16 tweets
Profile picture
Mike Sacks
@MikeSacksEsq
She's going root-and-branch here by targeting Buckley.
In Buckley, SCOTUS essentially held money is speech in political contexts, but upheld limits on campaign contributions while striking down limits on independent spending.

On each, the votes were 7-1.

CJ Burger woulda struck down both limits, Justice White woulda upheld both.
Warren's call for a constitutional amendment to reverse Buckley would vindicate White's view that "money is not always equivalent to or used for speech, even in the context of political campaigns." scholar.google.com/scholar_case?c…
Read 14 tweets

Related threads

Profile picture
Brian Cates
@drawandstrike
Turns out there's a sizable # of people out there who object to a national discussion of what to do in treating the mentally ill & how to deal with their access to firearms because...

[takes a deep breath]

they think the government is behind most of these mass shootings.
In other words, they object to this entire discussion President Trump wants to have on the mentally ill because they actually believe federal agents are creating, guiding, directing and encouraging crazy people to go into schools & shopping malls and mow down random strangers.
In other words, these people are telling me Trump isn't dealing with "the real problem" that's causing these mass shootings.

The FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the DSA, the FDA, it varies, is the real culprit and Trump is somehow blind to this, looking in the wrong direction.
Read 36 tweets
Profile picture
#HamiltonHumans/@rcoxnz
@hamilton_humans
Oh alright then. Have I told you about the time I damaged Brymer Road with the side of a truck?

Don't worry, it wasn't my truck.
I am, of course, assuming that if I get to the end of this thread before my time as Hamilton's nominated Twitter Human finishes at midnight, then @annasmartnz will buy me a coffee some time. Anyway.
Ok, so I'm pretty sure that we're in January of 1997 here. Maybe 1998. The only thing I know is for sure is that it's the day before the Big Day Out. Exactly which Big Day Out doesn't stand out. Maybe it was the one with the really grumpy Sparklehorse set.
Read 63 tweets
Profile picture
Rob Ford
@robfordmancs
Policy preferences don't drive party choice. Instead, for many people, tribal partisan attachments drive their policy preferences. People will adopt a new policy because their party backs it, but also *deny* that this is why they have done this.
This kind of psychology helps explain otherwise puzzling rise in support for "No Deal" Brexit - "Leave" and "Remain are now our most powerful political identities. So when "Leave" elites say "No Deal" is best, "Leave" voters adopt this preference & claim they backed it all along
Increasing political information doesn't help, incidentally - this isn't a matter of ignorance. On the contrary - those with greater political knowledge have more tools available to kid themselves that they made the switch of their own accord.
Read 6 tweets
Profile picture
MissAnthrope
@LyssAnthrope
The fact that the Attorney General, William Barr, is a Christian nationalist doesn't get nearly enough attention as it should.
AG Barr claimed that the founders believed that the greatest threat to free government was "personal licentiousness."
In fact, the founders were more concerned with corruption & foreign influence, especially emoluments
democracyjournal.org/magazine/11/or…
To support his ahistorical Christian nationalism, AG Barr quotes James Madison: "Our future is staked on the ability to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God"
scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/tcl/vol36/iss1…
Madison never said that
liarsforjesus.com/downloads/The_…
Read 11 tweets
Profile picture
Danger Close USA
@DangerClose_USA
💥Thread🌟
1. I never want to hear of another child being shot and killed in America. (or anywhere) At the same time I don't believe in retracting or abolishing the 2A, or disarming law abiding gun owners. I believe children deserve the right to be safe from gun violence.
2. As an American, I'm perplexed. The freedoms I cherish as an American recently seem dubbed as a blueprint worthy of rearranging by one side in the equation, and worthy of fighting for by another side in the equation. The division is real and unrelenting. But.. so is the fear.
3. Again, I never want to discuss disarming American civilians. Only because I know the majority of legal gun owners would have gave their lives to defend any one of the victims, and still would defend human life today, in the event of another tragedy. Why disarm good people?
Read 13 tweets

Trending hashtags

#MNDFL #amazing #Saskatchewan #FinalSay #Conservatism #conservative #torus #comment #fluid #Brexit #PreRaphaelites #IRA #MNGOP #debt #MaxwellsHole #SpiritualCoinOffering #WorldWide #ShitcoinWisdom #gauge #occam #PAMFAM #TalkingPictures #map #Country #physics
Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!