Lawyer. Former cop. Independent thinker. Unabashed Zionist & proud Jew. Lover of Israel & the US. Despise BS. 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 🎗🎗🎗
Aug 1, 2024 • 5 tweets • 3 min read
I've read through your arguments. Respectfully, they are way off while also ignoring several relevant factors.
First, regarding points 1 and 2: it's ALWAYS suspect when a politician seeks to change how a country's court of last resort works/functions in response to a ruling/holding that they don't like. Ironically, you try to make that same point regarding Netanyahu later in your thread but fail to apply that to the Biden Admin. (I will explain why your attempt to argue that it does apply to Netanyahu is incorrect further on.)
Biden (or whoever is really pulling the strings because _ I have my doubts) knows full well that these reforms require a constitutional amendment, one that he does not have a snowball's chance in hell of getting passed.
He also know's full well that most Americans don't know that it requires an amendment or what it would take to get an amendment passed.
You're a smart guy (I mean that sincerely): Do you not find it extremely suspicious that this is being brought out to such fanfare at the height of election season?
This leads me to ask, for what purpose would you launch a populist crusade against the High Court, that is unlikely to succeed, at the height of election season? To bring in more votes and galvanize and polarize a certain constituency that will lap it up.
You also argue that it's in response to "longstanding precedents *the court itself created or affirmed* in the past."
In 1896, in Plessy v. Ferguson, SCOTUS affirmed the right of states and the US federal government to enact Jim Crow laws under the "separate but equal" doctrine.
That same "longstanding precedent" was reversed by SCOTUS in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education.
The fact that a high court can come back and revisit its own precedents is not necessarily a bad thing.
We can argue about specific cases (and I imagine will disagree on many of them), but of course a high court must have that ability. Otherwise, "separate but equal" would still be the the law in the US. I think we both agree, without hesitation or qualification, that this would be VERY bad.
May 13, 2024 • 10 tweets • 4 min read
Here are some things you may have missed as you were busy watching the #Eurovison this week (🧵warning):
1. @JoeBiden is scrambling to keep Israel from invading Rafah and finding out whatever he, Egypt, the @UN, etc. are trying to hide, that he has offered up intel to Israel on where Hamas leaders are hiding out.
Question: If the US has this intel, and was so loudly supportive of Israel taking out Hamas, why hasn't it already provided it and potentially shortened this war instead of forcing Israel to show US style weakness at every turn, thus protracting civilian suffering?
