The Supreme Court's rulings systemically dismantling voting rights are constitutional negation. They present an argument for Biden and Congress to ignore an unlawful Supreme Court.
https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1410599479925903365
If the Supreme Court is going to act as a confederate council for an authoritarian party that is negating our constitution, then as a body they have invalidated themselves; it's no longer the Supreme Court of the constitution but the unconstitutional Roberts Court.
It's the duty of those who swore an oath to protect the constitution to negate the unconstitutional Roberts Court and install a new one.
That's the framing I'd like to see used on the Sunday shows. Let's get real with it.
That's the framing I'd like to see used on the Sunday shows. Let's get real with it.
I suppose this is dangerous talk, but not more dangerous than a Supreme Court that's clearly hostile to democracy. If we follow the rulings of such a court, how does democracy survive? Of what use is preserving such a court?
I'd say dangerous times calls for dangerous talk.
I'd say dangerous times calls for dangerous talk.
If we treat as valid the authority of a Supreme Court that desires to negate democracy, what law preserving democracy can survive it?
Even if we pass a new Voting Rights Act, how will it ever survive a court that would negate it?
What good is our constitution if democracy dies?
Even if we pass a new Voting Rights Act, how will it ever survive a court that would negate it?
What good is our constitution if democracy dies?
If the Roberts Court is the highest court in our land, then we effectively don't have a democracy.
If we don't have a democracy, we don't have a constitution.
Therefore, the Roberts Court cannot be thought the highest court in the land.
And that's all.
If we don't have a democracy, we don't have a constitution.
Therefore, the Roberts Court cannot be thought the highest court in the land.
And that's all.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
