All right, I'm giving up for the night. Have a good night everybody except Diane Feinstein. You helped to CREATE Amy Coney Barrett with your ineffectual questioning for her 7th Circuit post, and have treated this week as YOUR civility redemption tour instead of a desperate fight.
This week wasn't supposed to be about you, or her, or Lindsey freaking Graham. It was supposed to be about a deeply wrong and hypocritical attack on the democracy carried out by a Republican party hell bent on ensuring minority rule against the will of the people.
I'm sure you'll sleep feeling like YOUR reputation as a "fair minded" and "civil" legislator has been redeemed. But, like Bob Mueller, Dean Baquet, and so many, many other "institutionalists," your myopic focus on your own reputation has cost us another chance to fight back.
Do you know why Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell are able to bust in and take what they want? It's because there are too many people who are worried about looking bad while trying to stop them.

• • •

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!


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

16 Oct
Court question!
Ugh. Again. Stephanopoulous "The president is president for all four years."
Biden "yes, but after an election has started."
Wrong answer.
Biden again surfaces the idea that the problem with court packing is that it will be done by the other side if they get a chance.

HOW IS THAT WORSE THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW? Republicans want a 6-3 court NOW, and I'm supposed to worry about a 60-30 court in 10 years?
Read 4 tweets
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.

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).
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!