It sounds like Ed Kilgore over at New York Magazine’s Intelligencer website has a sad about all of the conservative judges being appointed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Maybe he’s nervous because Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was recently admitted to the hospital again, but somehow he’s come to the conclusion that Democrats have never politicized judicial appointments, and they need to start.
— Intelligencer (@intelligencer) May 7, 2020
Do Democrats care as much about the judiciary? Some do, particularly women, LGBTQ folks, and members of groups in danger of losing their voting rights. But Democrats did not “weaponize” judicial appointments in 2016 anywhere near the extent Republicans have, and while Trump and McConnell have won test after test of their resolve, Democrats lost theirs by failing to find a way to force the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland for the last 11 months of the Obama presidency.
As Republicans cheered the progress of their child-judge [Justin] Walker to the DC Circuit, Democrats were praying for the health of 87-year-old Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who participated by phone in oral arguments from a hospital bed where she was recovering from a flare-up of a chronic gallbladder ailment. It was a grim reflection of each party’s long-term positioning in the effort to shape the judiciary and, through it, constitutional law. Democrats better step up their messaging on these matters between now and November.
So he’s admitting that Ginsburg is an activist judge and Democrats need more like her? Better win in November then.
— Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) May 7, 2020
With those 2 words I know not to take you seriously.
— Dr. Ramirez 🇺🇸 🍷☕🎮🧙♂️ (@cybr_gk) May 7, 2020
I think you have this one backwards.
— Phil (@philllosoraptor) May 7, 2020
— EducatëdHillbilly™ (@RobProvince) May 7, 2020
— AgainstTrumpDude (@TheAmishDude) May 7, 2020
At no point in that price did the author ever support any sort of weaponization. He’s simply unhappy the senate and trump have been efficient.
— jsparker3 (@jsparker31) May 7, 2020
Republicans: Dutifully fill the many vacant court appointments, because it is their job.
— S. Epley (@SepleyII) May 7, 2020
“Weaponized” = “it’s legal, fair, and Constitutional, but I don’t like it!”
— 🎶Del Paxton’s Piano🎶 (@Mark_Derr) May 7, 2020
"Unlike Democrats" L M A O
— Taylor Svehlak (@TaylorSvehlak) May 7, 2020
— Zach Faria (@ZacharyFaria) May 7, 2020
I'd bet that Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh (and others) would disagree with that take.
— CivilityIsAChoice (@CreateCivility) May 7, 2020
See also Miguel Estrada.
— tbrusletten (@tbrusletten) May 7, 2020
These articles aren't written by journalists or researchers. They're written by screeching 13 yr old girls.
— Plimouth ⭐️⭐️⭐️ (@PlimouthOutWest) May 7, 2020
You deserve the ratio
— Phil. 💚💚 (@philthatremains) May 7, 2020
— Sean Moore (@SeanMoore1962) May 7, 2020
— ORIGINALBLACKPLAGUE (@OGBLACKPLAGUE) May 7, 2020
Unlike sane people, Dems have weaponized projection.
— Capt. Anton Zilwicki, RMN (@antonzilwicky54) May 7, 2020
I don’t think you understand what “weaponized” means
— Bacicot (@bacicot) May 7, 2020
Resisting judicial activism is "weaponizing"? Wow, that sounds really scary.
— Mr Tasie Devil (@MrTasieDevil) May 7, 2020
One likes the rule of Law the other likes legislation from the bench.
Those that like making up the law are…Democrats.
— SpiffTheSpaceMan (@SpiffDSpaceman) May 7, 2020
Wrong. 9th Circuit. QED
— Soliton (@Eigenmetric) May 7, 2020
— Sean Moss 🇺🇸 (@mossman86) May 7, 2020
Written unironically, no doubt.
— I don't know you, either (@Idontknowyouei1) May 7, 2020
Intelligencer, I think, is not talking about weaponizing the process, not weaponizing opposition to candidates, but making appointments as weapons.
Of course, it’s still a lie. Obama explicitly packed the courts to weaponize his leftist ideology.
— Pudge (@pudgenet) May 7, 2020
So much intelligencing
— ColumnatedRuinsDomino (@ECSilsby) May 7, 2020
An unread millennial wrote this.
— Ammosexual Deetz (@tahDeetz) May 7, 2020
It’s cute how you didn’t realize how this would be received
— Don’t SCOTUS Flush Me, Bro (@oklajoujou) May 7, 2020
— Safing Sector (@Gplavallee72) May 7, 2020
— John Wick's Failed High School Guidance Counselor (@UnAspirate) May 7, 2020
— MCap (@rightgay27) May 7, 2020
Yeah we know that the Democrats would never do that
— AJswimmer231 (@jswimmer231) May 7, 2020
From Ted Kennedy/Clarence Thomas hearings forward, Democrats have 100% politicised every judicial appointment. pic.twitter.com/JGuIqZEvNs
— James Crum (@jrcrum) May 7, 2020
Written with a straight face, somehow.
— Membrane55 (@membrane55) May 7, 2020
Look up “Borked”
— Peter Conroy (@ruhlax_guy) May 7, 2020
Thank goodness the party that BORKED Bork would never weaponize the thing they started the process of weaponizing.
It's also terrible that Harry Reid changed the rules deliberately to weaponize it…
That horrible GOP person. pic.twitter.com/9XvtbvulBl
— Gekkobear (@Gekkobear) May 7, 2020
Says party idolizing RBG with nicknames and action figures.
— Karen Paul (@KPBeachGirl) May 7, 2020
Ed, just stop.
Also….learn to code
— D Wenke (@DaveWenke) May 7, 2020
Unlike Republicans, Democrats have weaponized FBI counter-intelligence investigations https://t.co/NdJpJQ3wFK
— Eli Lake (@EliLake) May 7, 2020
I guess destroying the lives of Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh while refusing to apply the same standard to Joe Biden isn't "weaponizing" judicial appointments? Also derailing Robert Bork and Miguel Estrada's appointments for political reasons? Sure.
— Nick (@NickAtNight128) May 7, 2020
The party that made “Bork” a verb is complaining about weaponizing judicial appointments?
Vox judicial expert Ian Millhiser's 'deep dive into Trump's judges' might as well be 'an in-kind donation to Trump's re-election campaign' https://t.co/reQHqPgplg
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) December 9, 2019