Twitter | Search | |
Dan McLaughlin Oct 14
Kamala Harris, talking about the history of flatly discriminatory treatment of black voters, unintentionally makes the case for an originalist interpretation of the 14th & 15th Amendments, without fear or favor, which the Court failed to apply for many years.
Reply Retweet Like
Dan McLaughlin
Barrett corrects Harris' claim that the Court in Shelby County struck down Section 5's preclearance rule, as opposed to telling Congress that it had to cite some evidence to decide what jurisdictions were covered.
Reply Retweet Like More
Dan McLaughlin Oct 14
Replying to @baseballcrank
Harris rather obviously is framing these questions specifically to get Barrett to not answer them.
Reply Retweet Like
Dan McLaughlin Oct 14
Replying to @baseballcrank
Harris now wants judges to arbitrate questions of climate science.
Reply Retweet Like
Dan McLaughlin Oct 14
Replying to @baseballcrank
Barrett points out that Harris is trying to leap from an uncontroversial to a controversial point.
Reply Retweet Like
Cletus Van Damme Oct 14
Replying to @baseballcrank
Not updating the data in the preclearance formula from early-70s numbers has to be one of the greatest self-owns of the 2009-2011 Dem majority in both houses
Reply Retweet Like
Philip Klinkner Oct 14
Replying to @baseballcrank
Wait, I thought ACB wanted courts to defer to the political branches. How is “give us a good reason” deferential?
Reply Retweet Like
🦖 prag was otherwise peaceful ㋬ Oct 14
The preclearance req. in Section 5 was subject to the coverage formula in Section 4(b). That coverage formula was obsolete, based on decades-old data. Thus, when Section 4(b) was struck down, the application of Section 5 became dependent on a new formula from the legislature.
Reply Retweet Like
IronMike5189620 Oct 14
Replying to @baseballcrank
Harris is trying to make a point or get a scalp and it’s embarrassing. ACB is mopping the floor with Harris’ obvious bullshit
Reply Retweet Like