I worked close up on multiple Supreme Court nominations as a counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee. There is a rigorous process that both parties have rightly insisted on. It includes a careful examination of just about everything a potential justice has written or said. 1/5
It includes a thorough FBI background investigation with a chance for senators to review it and follow up on issues raised in it. It includes a chance for senators to have private conversations with the nominee, to ask questions publicly at a hearing, to follow up in writing. 2/5
It includes public input from others who have knowledge and perspectives; it includes a review of finances and conflicts and whatever specific issues may arise in a particular nomination. It includes discussion and debate. This is a serious process. 3/5
Giving the Senate the opportunity to do a genuine, thorough review of the President's nominee for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land is a key part of our system of checks and balances. It is important, and it takes time. 4/5
If there is not time to do it right, in a way that preserves democratic checks and balances, before an election recasts the wishes of the American people -- and there most certainly is not -- it should not be done. Period. 5/5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
