Also, for all those wondering "why don't the Democrats have a Federalist Society equivalent" well, @SenWhitehouse is indirectly explaining why.

We don't HAVE this web of dark money influences propping up our nominees, and holding our politicians to account.
If we did, the GOP would have never gotten away with Garland because literally every liberal group would have shut down the government. They wouldn't have gotten away with Kavanaugh, and they wouldn't be doing this.
And court expansion wouldn't be an "idea" it'd be the actual mandate and demand of the Democratic party (much like universal health care is now). We'd differ about how many, not whether to or not.
And we don't HAVE that big money infrastructure because (cue @AnandWrites) our wealthy people are actually NOT INTERESTED in doing the things that advance a more equal polity. They don't WANT the court to be an institution of small 'd' democratic ideals.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Elie Mystal

Elie Mystal 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 @ElieNYC

14 Oct
Harris is now explaining Shelby County v Holder to Amy Coney Barrett who pretended to not know what the case was about.
OKAY, ACB is being intellectually dishonest about the holding. She's saying that the preclearance coverage formula was struck down, but "congress could pass a new formula." That's technically not a lie, but what she's not telling you...
is that Roberts struck down the preclearance formula in such a way as to make it unlikely that ANY preclearance formula could be legislated that would pass constitutional muster.
Read 7 tweets
14 Oct
Welp, Josh Hawley actually just blew up Barrett's entire point.

Barrett argued that she couldn't give an answer on Griswold because it's an active controversy. But Hawley just had her admit to that there was no active litigation about Griswold for the past decades.
SO, WHICH ONE IS IT GOP?

Either Griswold is SETTLED and she can take a position on supporting it (if she did) OR it's a live issue and her views on whether WOMEN CAN GET BIRTH CONTROL is kind of important.

PICK A RULE, HAWLEY, but you can't have it both ways.
Honestly, if these hearings matter what @HawleyMO did was one of the DUMBEST things he could have done. I really hope one of @TheDemocrats picks up on this.
Read 4 tweets
14 Oct
Barrett says that Griswold (the right to contraception) is "unlikely to go anywhere" and suggests that it would take a statute to take it away.

This answer is full of crap because HOBBY LOBBY HAPPENED which denied contraception to women working there.
She says Griswold involves substantive due process. That's a tell. You can defend Griswold under the right to privacy, if you believe it exists, WHICH AMY CONEY BARRETT DOESN'T
Again, this is an example of Barrett TAKING A POSITION ON A CASE, while saying that she's not.
Read 4 tweets
14 Oct
Strap in, @amyklobuchar is up.

If it were me, if Dems win the WH and Senate I'd have her lead the judiciary committee next Congress.
Oooh, and it's "I've had enough of your bullshit" Klobuchar. :)
"Minnesota Nice" Klobuchar > "Let hunt elk with beer" Klobuchar
Read 4 tweets
14 Oct
What's weird about Grassley is that he's a person who believes in conservative legal principles in a way that exists *outside* of being a FedSoc schill. Like, he's from an era before the FedSoc completely captured the GOP and told them how to talk about the law.
It's not like Grassley *disagrees* with FedSoc. It's just that he comes to his beliefs a little differently than the FedSoc group think, and it shows in his presentation (of views I think are wrong)
It's hard to explain the daylight between a Grassley approach and a FedSoc one, but, it's a little about intellectual honesty (FedSoc purposely misleads people while Grassley really is that dumb, if you will).
And...
Read 4 tweets
14 Oct
The other day, I remarked on how time feels like it's slowing down as we approach the election. I think I understand why:
It's natural for humans to plan ahead. We set markers for when we'll do things, and we notice when those markers get closer and closer. Time progresses.
But right now, at least for me, I can't plan past Nov 3rd. I have no idea what the world will look like. Literally, my calendar usually gets filled up with "engagements" at least a month out. But I have NOTHING in my calendar past 11/3, I'm not even trying to think past that.
So, that's temporally distorting. I have nothing to look forward to, nothing I can really plan to do. As the Oracle says in the Matrix, we can't see past the choices we don't understand. And so it feels like *infinite* time b/w now and 11/3, b/c I can't comprehend "after it" yet.
Read 4 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!