CavsKermit Profile picture
Sep 20, 2020 5 tweets 1 min read Read on X
Only a party that was planning on being out of power for a long time, or a party that believes it will need the Court's help to retain power, would undertake the risk Senate Rs are about to undertake.
There is no reasonable argument in favor of expanding the number of SCOTUS seats if they leave this seat open until the next POTUS is sworn in. No one benefitted by differing standards or hypocrisy. They have a safe and legitimate conservative majority on the Court.
Conversely, if a party tries to cement a 6-3 majority on SCOTUS while, or even after, the voters have shown them the door, why wouldn't the opposition party change the number of seats?
That 6-3 Court will already be saddled with a legitimacy issue in the eyes of a huge percentage of the population. If you find yourself already in that situation, there's little downside to adding four liberal justices. It's better to have a compromised Court that has your back.
Maybe the bet they're making is that if the Ds change the number of seats it will only be to 11 and they'll still have a conservative majority. But I can't think of a single good reason for Ds to do that.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with CavsKermit

CavsKermit 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!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JbkJbk1234

May 11, 2023
Lol, Thomas participated in this decision. Surprised that Alito didn't write it was error for the lower court to fail to consider whether the briber was a *dear friend* of the bribee.
The very real problem with Thomas staying on the Court is that the majority of Justices are going to be heavily incentivized to legalize all kinds of graft now and the Roberts Court's record on that front was already no bueno.
I mean how is Thomas participating in this case? Image
Read 4 tweets
Aug 22, 2021
Personally, I think if someone is trotting out the old America's *standing* or *leadership* within the global community trope, that should be viewed as a tacit admission that they don't have good strategic arguments for staying.

But if we're going to place value on precedent...
Then we should look to the otherside of that coin.

1) What does it say if the American people want to end a foreign occupation, elect not one, but three successive Presidents to do that, and it still doesn't happen?
What incentives arise within our own military, IC, and private contractors when none of time, treasure, nor success of the mission are relevant factors because public support has been decoupled from their ability to continue?
Read 7 tweets
Aug 17, 2021
A national security crisis is basically a bad takes Olympics.
Read 4 tweets
Aug 17, 2021
Our plan was to leave, the Afghan government's plan was to continue to be corrupt, and the Afghan security forces' plan was to surrender rather than fight in the face of that corruption.
And there's just no way around the latter two problems which is why all of these op-eds, every single one of them, simply decide to disappear them.
I want to see the op-ed that offers a solution to the problem of the Afghan security forces preferring to surrender to the Taliban rather than fight for a government as corrupt as the last one.
Read 4 tweets
Aug 17, 2021
I'd like to preface what I'm about to say by noting that I'm not unsympathetic to those who fought with us and were left out in the cold by their own countrymen.

I'd like Biden pursue all reasonable measures to rescue as many of those folks as possible.

That said...
The MSM can seriously go fuck itself right now. You want to know how we get stuck in places like Afghanistan for 20 years? You want to know why we never leave? Pick up a newspaper and read how national security conflicts are covered.
And the power to shape how we engage in foreign policy, particularly when the use of military force is on the table, is something emedia institutions cherish.

Three Presidents in a row operating as though they were actually elected to conduct FP has broken these people.
Read 8 tweets
Aug 16, 2021
If you're of the opinion that the U.S. should've kept troops in a half a dozen forward positions to stave off collapse, and had half a dozen extraction points, you should say that.

You should also be clear about the risks that would present to our troops.
There are no free rides here, and once the Afghan security forces called it quits, there were no good options.
We should've evacuated our allies ahead of troops? Perhaps, but then you just took out a giant ad saying we have zero faith in the Afghan security forces to protect their countrymen.

We could've been watching this play out in May only our troops would've still been exposed.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


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

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(