Deeply disappointed in this political stunt by @SenWarren.
She was either playing to the base for the primaries, or oblivious as to how it comes across so cynically.
This is not who she is, and she owes Chief Justice Roberts an apology.
She was either playing to the base for the primaries, or oblivious as to how it comes across so cynically.
This is not who she is, and she owes Chief Justice Roberts an apology.
If you think this tactic will be an effective way to persuade Roberts, you haven’t been watching him on the bench.
2012: When Scalia and Kennedy pushes their ACA Sebelius case too far to the partisan right, he recoiled and changed his vote very late.
This would backfire.
2012: When Scalia and Kennedy pushes their ACA Sebelius case too far to the partisan right, he recoiled and changed his vote very late.
This would backfire.
3/ Furthermore, it’s the 11th hour and trying to persuade one or two Republicans- and a conservative one, because all of the moderates have committed already.
This was a way to alienate any persuadable conservative, not win them over.
Terrible judgment.
This was a way to alienate any persuadable conservative, not win them over.
Terrible judgment.
4/ Her question was designed to use up trial time & take advantage of Roberts's presiding role of reading questions in order to embarrass him.
It validated a bad faith GOP talking point: "Dems are only interested in a partisan circus."
Great move when asking them for witnesses.
It validated a bad faith GOP talking point: "Dems are only interested in a partisan circus."
Great move when asking them for witnesses.
5/ This ratio suggests some of my fellow progressives are more interested in embarrassing & pwning conservatives...
even when it is likely to backfire not only with the target (a Chief Justice) & the swing-vote Senators, but also w/ the voters who will decide the 2020 election.
even when it is likely to backfire not only with the target (a Chief Justice) & the swing-vote Senators, but also w/ the voters who will decide the 2020 election.
6/ And by the way, as this played out last night and this morning, the general perception outside our bubble is that Warren's move backfired when Roberts read the question respectfully, didn't dodge it, and it made him more sympathetic, not less.
Which was totally foreseeable.
Which was totally foreseeable.
A cautionary tale for law professors:
Roberts was *presiding officer* not trial judge. He cannot call witnesses if 51 Senators vote no on a motion.
Some profs, w/o understanding Senate rules, misled people to blame Roberts & think Warren shaming Roberts is appropriate.
Roberts was *presiding officer* not trial judge. He cannot call witnesses if 51 Senators vote no on a motion.
Some profs, w/o understanding Senate rules, misled people to blame Roberts & think Warren shaming Roberts is appropriate.
