Since the commission was formed in April, the Supreme Court has gutted the Voting Rights Act, let Texas ban abortion, made it harder for workers to organize, blocked an eviction moratorium, and forced asylum seekers to remain in Mexico. All since April.
It is not a good sign that the WH Supreme Court commission has released its “discussion materials” and the section on court expansion opens by repeating — but not correcting — a Republican lie.
A Democratic senate confirmed a Reagan SCOTUS nominee in 1988.
The White House commission *knows* that Republican lie is a lie — it received testimony from @AaronBelkin correcting the lie back in August. Yet they repeated it anyway, without correction. whitehouse.gov/wp-content/upl…
LOL what?
The WH Supreme Court commission’s “discussion materials” are an absolute joke.
Try to make this make sense: The WH Commission says SCOTUS rulings don’t fall on ideological lines because many of the cases are non-ideological and on those non-ideological cases the justices don’t align in ideological ways.
That’s “D-minus, re-write this paper” level nonsense.
The WH Commission has produced a very bad body of “discussion materials,” in large part because rather than diagnosing a problem and assessing solutions, it attempted to synthesize competing views. “Democrats say X; Republicans say Y.” (1/2)
But Republicans are actively working to destroy democracy and seize power by any means necessary, including violent overthrow of the government. They simply are not legitimate governing partners; treating them as such guarantees bad outcomes. (2/2)
It is *amazing* that at this late date so much of the political, media, and academic establishment simply refuses to grapple with the fundamental truth of what the Republican Party is, and with the consequences of treating it as a normal political party in a functional democracy.
If your starting point for thinking about what we should do is "Let's see what Mitch McConnell says," you're worse than nowhere. Your best possible outcome is Doom, But Slightly Slower.
Republicans have held a Supreme Court majority for more than 50 years and have appointed 15 of the last 19 justices despite losing the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 presidential elections, and Joe Biden appointed a Commission that does not agree this misalignment is a problem.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I basically never read Rubin and back when I did I was critical of her; I have no opinion on whatever evolution she has or hasn't undergone. But if The Nation did this to some National Review writer Politico would publish three pieces about the Left's "Jewish Problem" by Tuesday.
(also, having a few times given reporters quotes blasting their news company and the existence of the article for which they were seeking comment, only to see my quote excluded from the article, it's hilarious to think that putting the quote off the record might've gotten it in.)
Hi @jack@TwitterSupport I don't follow this anti-vax crackpot who you've endorsed with a verification badge but for some reason you're promoting his anti-vaccine nonsense by inserting this tweet into my feed. Why?
At the end of a 2-year-old thread about Oberlin's dining hall and at the end of the thread, Twitter added a "More Tweets" recommended module full of anti-vax tweets, Ben Shapiro rants, and endorsements of Newsom recall. I don't follow any of these people. @TwitterSupport@jack
Silly puff piece that pretends the abortion ban is the work of a tireless genius whose meticulously-crafted legislation is impervious to judicial review, rather than the inevitable result of *Republicans packing the courts with anti-abortion activists.*
Congratulations on convincing Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, Samuel Alito, Neal Gorsuch, and Brett Freaking Kavanaugh to allow your abortion ban to stand, truly a work of staggering genius, you must be a legal mastermind like no other.
Say their names. Make their political affiliation and aims clear, @GeorgeWBush. These are *right-wing* extremists; they are supported, and support, the Republican Party.
You don’t get credit for calling out violent extremists if you do it in a way that lets the political movement to which they — and you — belong pretend you’re talking about antifa, BLM, and everyone *except* the violent right-wing extremists who are the actual threat.
Well, I guess you *do* get credit, because a large portion of the news media has always given George W. Bush credit he doesn’t deserve. But you *shouldn’t* get credit.
NYT won’t correct this and nobody will make much noise about it because it isn’t as dramatic as, say, the Comey front page, but this kind of thing is and always has been quite common at the NYT, because the NYT is a conservative news company.
oh and if you point out to anyone at the NYT that the completely unsupported assertion it ran in its own voice in the news section is in fact contradicted by a bunch of polls they'll sneer that you don't understand journalism and it isn't their job to oppose Trump or some dumb sh
Hey quick question: did the Republican nominee have any red flags of comparable or greater import, or was the hyper focus on email protocol proportional to its importance relative to other matters?