Make way for the Expert™, who has some thoughts on filling the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s SCOTUS seat:
.@RadioFreeTom accuses the GOP of judicial activism for seeking to fill vacant SCOTUS seat: “Senators said over & over again, constitutionally we’re allowed to do this. That’s right. But the fact of the matter is our system operates much more on norms” than “written law.” pic.twitter.com/BfRXXZjqUU
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) September 21, 2020
Tom Nichols, the Expert™, has spoken!
wtf is this bimbo talking about? https://t.co/N6g7YU9FcT
— The Partyman (@PartymanRandy) September 21, 2020
Wait, are you suggesting that Nichols’ argument is less than rock-solid?
Tom’s got a big ol’ “But”
— I did not and will not vote for him. Calm down. (@jtLOL) September 21, 2020
There’s always a “but” when Tom Nichols is on the case.
Here we go with the “norms” again.
— Muscles Rothschild (@MusclesRoth) September 21, 2020
ah yes, the great hallowed “norms” clause in U.S. law. https://t.co/z0Bhy6eXy2
— tsar becket adams (@BecketAdams) September 21, 2020
a norm so hallowed and so great that 9 SCOTUS justices have been nominated and confirmed during presidential election years.
— tsar becket adams (@BecketAdams) September 21, 2020
we must support the party that is threatening to pack the courts. it is the only way to save my big wet beautiful norm.
— tsar becket adams (@BecketAdams) September 21, 2020
So big. So wet. So beautiful.
Muh norms.
Oh, an objectively incorrect take. How surprising.
— JoggingWithBurritos (@JoggingBurrito) September 21, 2020
Okay everyone, America’s foremost expert on stuff, @radiofreetom has declared that it is foolish when considering a Supreme Court appointment to rely on the Constitution and written law. https://t.co/2a7whbihSN
— Brad Slager: Me, Gerard, Bourbon, and Poor Choices (@MartiniShark) September 21, 2020
That’s a hell of an argument to make. But it’s exactly the argument we’ve come to expect from Tom Nichols.
Norms expert guy is supporting the party threatening to pack the courts, do away with Senate filibuster, abolish the electoral college, increase number of states, abolish the Senate and all while criticizing the party following the Constitution. https://t.co/KdD6eCDnCq
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) September 21, 2020
“Norms” mean something different to Tom Nichols.
Wondering if the expert thinks the Democrats preserved norms during the Kavanaugh hearings?
— BT (@back_ttys) September 21, 2020
That’s a rhetorical question, of course.
Trump nominated Kavanaugh, so the “norm” was a Democratic hit job. Which means they preserved norms.
See how this works?
According to Tom, the Constitution is not the “norm”.
The fact that the President has always nominated SCOTUS replacements in election years is not the norm.
According to the expert, “norms” are whatever he happens to want at a given moment. https://t.co/N6g7YU9FcT
— The Partyman (@PartymanRandy) September 21, 2020
Put another way:
In this case the norms means doing what Democrats demand or else.
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) September 21, 2020
Basically.
This same fraud will tell you that voting for the Democrats who are promising to stack the court and kill the filibuster is the only way to protect “the norms.”
It’s laughable that this guy is taken seriously by anyone. https://t.co/IeLxX8GFpt
— RBe (@RBPundit) September 21, 2020
