I’ve been thinking a lot about Justice Breyer’s comments about the importance of trust in the Supreme Court, and the thing is: it’s even more important to have a *trustworthy* Court. And we do not. That’s why we must expand the court. Me, in @crookedmedia: crooked.com/articles/supre…
Democrats have won the most votes in 7 of the last 8 presidential elections, and yet two-thirds of Americans were not even born yet the last time the Supreme Court had a majority that was appointed by Democratic presidents.
Nobody can seriously argue this is how things should be
How is a court dominated by America's minority political party for 50 years and counting and that does things like gutting the Voting Rights Act, helping that party impose minority rule, worthy of our trust? It is not. It is a participant in the GOP's assault on democracy.
Trust the court is all-important? *Whose* trust?
How the hell are Black people supposed to trust a court that guts the Voting Rights Act on the premise that racism is no longer a factor in access to the polls?
Incidentally, this is kind of long — 1,800 words or so, IIRC. I tend to think and write either in 280-character bursts or in 1,500-2,500 word blocks; I rarely enjoy 700. Appreciate @crookedmedia & @brianbeutler allowing space to stretch my legs a bit.
This is a great question, since it seems pretty clear both of them lied during their confirmation hearings. Unfortunately, the 2/3 vote hurdle in the Senate is nearly insurmountable. Easier to dilute their power via expansion than to remove them.
It’s very weird how many of our political leaders and media elites treat Donald Trump’s deadly insurrection as completely separate from his governing acts. Nobody should think it acceptable that a third of the Supreme Court was nominated by a seditionist!
Two-thirds of the American people were not even born yet the last time a majority of the Supreme Court was appointed by Democrats. Despite losing the popular vote in 7 of 8 presidential elections, GOP captured the court & uses it to impose minority rule.
The thing about this objection is that it’s really dumb. Republicans *currently* have a (stolen) 6-3 majority. If they expand the court in retaliation for us expanding the court, we’re…just right back where we are now, but with some good years in between.
Sure, that’s what I would expect a Republican to think! The timing of Breyer’s departure is the difference between a 6-3 GOP court and a 7-2 GOP court. Democrats should think bigger than merely preserving our current huge disadvantage.
The Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act — and that was *before* Kavanaugh & Barrett joined; it’s gotten more right wing since then. And it’s an active participant in the GOP’s assault on democracy. We don’t have time for schemes that don’t immediately rebalance the court.
If your “better idea” leaves in place a Republican Supreme Court majority that is an active participant in the GOP’s effort to destroy democracy and impose minority rule, you have a *worse* idea.
If you’re wondering why Republicans’ heads are exploding it’s because they’re used to doing whatever the hell they want on the assumption Democrats will let them get away with it, and today @EdMarkey@MondaireJones@RepJerryNadler@RepHankJohnson said it isn’t like that any more.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Hi, @nytimes. Seems like an article that attempts to equate a donor to environmental causes with the Koch brothers and includes a quote from a “watchdog group” explicitly equating them should mention that *the watchdog group is funded by the Kochs.* desmogblog.com/capital-resear…
A key difference between the Kochs and Wyss, Arabella, etc etc, is that the Kochs have spent decades and billions of dollars attacking the concept of truth and funding a movement that seeks to destroy democracy, and Wyss, Arabella, etc etc have, you know … not.
This is some spectacular false equivalence by the @nytimes. The substance of the Kochs’ actions — their goals, and the damage they do to society in order to achieve them — matters.
@nytimes If it was me, I probably would have noted that Edward Glaeser is a senior fellow at the right-wing Manhattan Institute, but giving readers that kind of context might make them wonder why this article even exists.
Car charging stations are tangible. Water pipes are tangible. Broadband is tangible!
Can’t think of a single time in history a Senator opposed a nominee of his own party for the stated reason that the nominee is too partisan. Unprecedented stupidity.
Joe Manchin voted to confirm Bill Barr, but says he’ll vote against Neera Tanden because she’s too partisan.
I don’t think “too partisan” is his real objection.
Joe Manchin voted to confirm Jeff Sessions — a man who had previously been rejected for a federal judgeship for being too racist — but says he’ll vote against Neera Tanden because she’s too partisan.
I don’ think “too partisan” is Manchin’s real objection.
The case against it is that the premise — that there’s something Biden and Democrats could propose that Republicans would agree to — is highly suspect, given everything that has happened for the last thirty years.
Republicans reacted to Bill Clinton — not exactly Bernie Sanders, you know? —becoming president by voting *unanimously* against his first budget. Obama intro’d Mitt Romney’s health care plan and loaded stimulus with GOP-friendly tax cuts. They opposed both. It’s what they do.
This idea that a nontrivial number of Republicans will work with a Democratic president at the beginning of his administration — no matter what he proposes — is just pure fantasy. It’s based on *nothing* but pundits’ desire to pretend the Republican Party isn’t what it is.
Last November it became fashionable in some circles to say that court expansion hurt Democrats in Senate races, based on no evidence whatsoever. People who oppose expansion just asserted it, because they want to scare Democrats out of expanding the court.
Didn’t happen. (2/6)
Here’s the thing: Republicans don’t believe their own assertions about the politics of court expansion. We know that because *they didn’t run ads about it.*
Lemme say that again: *Republicans didn’t run ads about it.*