Share this page!

Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Twitter logo
11 Oct, 4 tweets, 2 min read
It's not just staggering, but well-documented.

Republicans accused Democrats of court-packing when Obama *tried to fill vacant seats* on the DC Circuit. They refused to let Obama fill tons of other vacancies for purely partisan reasons.

And they bragged about it on the record.
Yes, McConnell refused to confirm Obama's judicial nominees from 2015-2016. But Republicans started indefinitely blocking Obama's nominees with blue slips long before that. They kept seats open for years on end just to ensure that Obama wouldn't fill them.
So many of Trump's judges—including the most brazenly partisan hacks—are sitting in stolen seats. Amy Coney Barrett's seat was stolen from Myra Selby, a Black Obama nominee. And Republicans effectively *shrank the 5th Circuit* to stop Obama's nominees.
(I don't think Democrats should waste their time fixating on Republicans' hypocrisy over the courts, because hypocrisy-policing is not a winning message, and Republicans will just lie about it, anyway; they have no shame. But we can at least acknowledge that they're lying.)

• • •

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

Keep Current with Mark Joseph Stern

Mark Joseph Stern 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 @mjs_DC

Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
7 Oct
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.
Read 8 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
5 Oct
The Supreme Court turned away Kim Davis' case, but Thomas (joined by Alito) wrote a jaw-dropping rant taking direct aim at Obergefell and suggesting that SCOTUS must overturn the right to marriage equality in order to protect free exercise. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
Thomas and Alito give a full-throated defense of Kim Davis, saying she was persecuted for her "traditional Christian values."

"Davis may have been one of the first victims of this Court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision, but she will not be the last."
"Since Obergefell, parties have continually attempted to label people of good will as bigots merely for refusing to alter their religious beliefs in the wake of prevailing orthodoxy." -Thomas

Two Supreme Court justices have essentially said that Kim Davis is a modern-day martyr.
Read 7 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
2 Oct
Oh no. SCOTUS just agreed to hear a case that the conservatives could use to end the Voting Rights Act as we know it. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
Background on the case SCOTUS just took up:

The 9th Circuit struck down two Arizona voting restrictions. It ruled that both laws had a disproportionate impact on racial minorities, and that one was motivated by racist intent, all in violation of the VRA.
slate.com/news-and-polit…
Republicans hope to use this case as a vehicle to shred the VRA's most potent remaining tool: The ban on voting laws with a disproportionate impact on racial minorities.

John Roberts has wanted to kill this section of the VRA since it was passed. slate.com/news-and-polit…
Read 7 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
30 Sep
I’m voting for @RobertWhite_DC and @edlazere in the DC Council at-large race. I believe they’re the most progressive, humane, and responsible candidates. I’m also voting YES on Initiative 81 to make the ban on psychedelic plants MPD’s lowest law enforcement priority.
DC voters: Be sure to vote for TWO candidates in the DC Council at-large race. It’s one race, but you pick two candidates. (I’m voting for White and Lazere.)

And be sure to flip over your ballot to vote on Initiative 81—it’s on the back and easy to miss. (I’m voting YES.)
On Initiative 81: This is a no-brainer. Our drug prohibition laws empower law enforcement to perform pretextual searches and abusive arrests. They fuel police brutality, mass incarceration, and systemic racism. Initiative 81 is a small but important step in the right direction.
Read 5 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
23 Sep
By his own admission, Trump wants the federal judiciary to nullify enough absentee ballots to hand him a second term. He intends to select a Supreme Court justice who will help him achieve this goal. He wants SCOTUS to help him steal the election. None of this is even debatable.
Senate Republicans intend to help Trump steal the election by ramming through a new Supreme Court justice less than a week before Election Day. Trump plans to pick a justice who vote to nullify enough absentee ballots to hand him the election. He has publicly stated this goal.
There is no point in debating Trump’s plan because he has said it out loud repeatedly. We have every reason to believe that he will pick a Supreme Court nominee based on the candidate’s willingness to help him steal the election. He has admitted that this is a litmus test.
Read 4 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
22 Sep
If Senate Democrats do not threaten to expand the Supreme Court after Republicans install a justice in the middle of an election (or during the lame duck), they will have effectively surrendered. There is no other proportional response. It’s court expansion or nothing.
Republicans established new rules: The party in power can use any tool at its disposal to seize the Supreme Court, within explicit constitutional limits. Democrats will solve nothing if they unilaterally disarm. They can either adopt the new rules and expand the court, or die.
Democratic senators who won’t support court expansion as a proportional response to this power grab should be treated as cowards and dupes of the right. Republicans have ruthlessly shattered all norms and principles to seize the judiciary. Democrats must respond in kind.
Read 7 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

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!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get email notifications when new thread is out from this Author!

Check out other threads from this Author!

Read all threads by @mjs_DC