Chuck Todd just said that the Michigan Supreme Court did not "cite any law" in deciding that Gov. Whitmer didn't "have this power." That would come as a surprise to justices who cited any array of cases in a 50 page majority opinion.…
...Todd was following Whitmer's statement that this was a "partisan opinion." In fact, the Democrats agreed that she violated the Constitution. They simply had a different response to her violations. Todd has previously left such untrue statements stand in interviews with Whitmer
...Todd has now responded by adding his own misrepresentation. He falsely told the NBC viewers that the Michigan Supreme Court did not cite any cases to support its decision. There appears as little inclination as expectation for accurate reporting on Meet The Press.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Jonathan Turley

Jonathan Turley 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 @JonathanTurley

14 Oct
Sen. Coons again hit Barrett on her willingness to revisit precedent. It is an incomprehensible position and Barrett hit Coons effectively on cases like Lawrence.…
...Coons said those were "grievously wrong cases." He then said she should look at precedent through a "Ginsburg lens" rather than a Scalia lens." That sounds not as much as a defense of precedence but precedence that he or Justice Ginsburg would like to preserve.
...The standard of only overturning "grievously wrong cases" is code for overturning cases like Heller but promising not to touch other cases like Roe.
Read 4 tweets
13 Oct
Durbin just expressed confusion on "where does this notion that you would violate your oath come from?" He then pulled out another giant photo and possible victims of her voting against the ACA.…
...The clear message is that her expected vote in the case is the key issue for confirmation. It is entirely inappropriate for Senators like Booker to say that they will vote against her on the basis of her expected vote in the case -- absent an assurance of a contrary vote.
Durbin just set up a question that resulted in one of the best moments for Barrett. Asked about what she felt in watching the George Floyd video, Barrett said it had a huge impact on her as the mother to two black children. She said that she wept with her children over the video.
Read 7 tweets
13 Oct
Feinstein noted that Ginsburg stated that the Constitution supports abortion in her hearing. That is a good set up for the question since it negates the impact of the "Ginsburg Rule."  However, Barrett pivoted to cite Kagan…
...Kagan refused to answer the same question saying that she would not give “a thumbs up or thumbs down” on abortion questions. The Democrats supported her in refusing to answer the questions.
Sen. Leahy is actually questioning Barrett on whether she knows the cost of insulin and then added "I would not expect you to." Precisely. She is not the nominee for the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Read 4 tweets
12 Oct
Sen. Feinstein's opening sounds more like a legislative markup hearing for the ACA. She is detailing the benefits under the ACA to a nominee who is not supposed to legislate from the bench. The best way to emphasize apolitical judging is not to try to sell a nominee on a policy.
...How Barrett feels about the ACA is not relevant to how she must review the constitutionality of the statute. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes made this clear when he wrote: "I always say, as you know, that if my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. It’s my job."
...Now Sen. Leahy is explaining the value of the ACA to Barrett. Is this the type of argument that Democratic members want to sway jurists? If so, jurists would become super legislators. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that Barrett would vote against severance on the ACA.
Read 4 tweets
12 Oct
This hearing already has a different feel from Barrett's appellate confirmation. That hearing likely makes the Democratic members a bit more cautious. Barrett proved to be the Rocky Balboa of nominees. The members pummeled her with everything that they had sort of a chair...
...she did not falter throughout the assault. They are less likely to get within her reach with another faith-based attack. Indeed, the talking points seem directed more at the election than the nomination by emphasizing the ACA case. That case however has been misrepresented.
...The ACA is not likely to be struck down entirely. Roberts and Kavanaugh could well vote with the more liberal members on the issue of severing the individual mandate provision from the rest of the Act. Opposing a nominee due to her expected vote on a pending case is wrong...
Read 4 tweets
8 Oct
Kamala Harris has continued to refuse to answer the question of whether she will support packing the court. Harris previously expressed support for the idea but now refuses to be clear on the issue that she helped raise during the primary.…
...the test of principle is following principle when it is not popular or convenient. This proposal would destroy the Supreme Court and do precisely what Ginsburg once denounced.
...I like Susan Page's style and questions tonight. I was surprised however that she did not ask Harris to explain why the public should not know her position on court packing before they vote. This is a fundamental change to a critical institution in our Constitution system...
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!