The Democratic Party is failing to persuasively explain why the Senate shouldn't even consider Amy Coney Barrett, and it's failing to make a persuasive case against Barrett herself. Republicans are clearly winning this battle. Democrats are blowing it. morningconsult.com/2020/10/07/amy…
Two weeks ago, I was told that Senate Democrats would not discuss court expansion because they preferred to fight Barrett's confirmation first. But they're barely doing that. And now they're poised to blow the hearings. Democrats' approach to Barrett has been a complete disaster.
Here's the thing: The Democratic base is mad. They're scared of Barrett. They're still mourning RBG. They're furious about Garland. And they're outraged by McConnell's rank hypocrisy.
Senate Democrats have failed to channel this anger into anything productive. It's appalling.
The political malpractice we are seeing among Senate Democrats right now is one of the greatest gifts the party has ever given to the GOP. They aren't fighting Barrett. They've privately given up. They're just tweeting resistance bait. ActBlue donations aren't going to stop this.
In response to @marty_lederman and others: A big problem here is that Democrats haven't figured out how to lose bitter battles over the Supreme Court and then turn those losses into a subsequent victory by mobilizing the grievance they generate. The GOP has perfected this.
Democrats assume that there's no point in fierce engagement unless you can "win." If you assume that premise, then sure, Dems probably can't "win" right now. But the whole point is to lose in a way that sets up the next battle. And you don't do that by going through the motions.
When Obama nominated Merrick Garland, a bunch of Republican senators refused to meet with him.
Democratic senators don't even have the backbone or discipline to *decline Amy Coney Barrett's phone calls.* It's like they've completely given up. They have failed their voters.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The seamless expansion of same-day registration to so many states proves that there is no legitimate reason to cut off voter registration before Election Day, let alone a full month before. Registration deadlines are just a pretext to prevent less engaged citizens from voting.
In many states, you can walk up to the polls on Election Day, register to vote, and cast your ballot. In other states, you have to register up to a full month before Election Day. The only difference is that the first group of states wants people to vote and the second does not.
Same-day registration also protects voters against administrative errors and unlawful purges that cancel their active status shortly before an election. In Virginia, for instance, citizens wrongfully purged by Youngkin can re-register at the polls through Election Day.
NEW: A far-right panel of the 5th Circuit rules that it is *illegal* for states to count ballots that arrive shortly after Election Day but are postmarked by Election Day.
BUT: The 5th Circuit decision only applies to Mississippi, the one state within the circuit that counts ballots received after Election Day.
The 5th Circuit is trying to tee up a Supreme Court decision to strike down ballot laws in many other states, too. s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2525…
The 5th Circuit declined to issue a preliminary injunction against Mississippi's law, but declared it illegal and ordered the district court to issue an appropriate remedy. Nobody knows what that will look like! Confusion will now reign. s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2525…
The Supreme Court also sends NINE Chevron cases back down to the lower courts for reconsideration in light of Loper Bright. The disruption officially begins: supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
The Supreme Court vacates an 8th Circuit decision that had granted North Dakota lawmakers a "legislative privilege" from discovery in an important Native redistricting case, agreeing with the plaintiffs that the dispute has become moot. (KBJ dissents.) supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
🚨The Supreme Court rules that President Trump has "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution for all "official acts" he took while in office. The vote is 6–3 with all three liberals dissenting. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
Sotomayor, dissenting: Today's decision shields presidents from prosecution "for criminal and treasonous acts" and "makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law." supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
The Supreme Court's second decision is NetChoice. Justice Kagan's complicated opinion for the court remands both cases to the appeals courts for the proper analysis of a First Amendment facial challenge, which, she says, they flunked the first time. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
HOWEVER: Kagan's opinion for the court holds that content moderation IS "expressively activity" and that social media platforms ARE protected by the First Amendment, no matter their size, from state intrusion. That's a major holding. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
Kagan says social media platforms engage in protected speech when moderating content posted by third parties, and Texas' alleged interest in interfering with that practice amounts to the "suppression of free expression, and it is not valid" under the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court's first decision is Corner Post. By a 6–3 vote, the majority allows plaintiffs to challenge an agency action LONG after it has been finalized. All three liberals dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
This article explains why today's outcome in Corner Post will be so destabilizing to the administrative state—it means that agency actions are never really safe from legal assault, even decades after they're finalized. It's a really big deal. americanprogress.org/article/corner…
In her dissent, Justice Jackson urges Congress to enact a new law to "forestall the coming chaos" created by today's decision, reimposing the statute of limitations that had, until now, prevented new plaintiffs from endlessly challenging regulations. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…