The Democrats have been working hard to redefine “infrastructure” to mean pretty much anything, and the term “court-packing” is also being given a new definition. Sen. Ted Cruz was approached this week by a law student, and apparently his Georgetown Law professor was pretty impressed:
— Billy Berns (@BillyBerns) April 22, 2021
One of my students came across Ted Cruz's anti-Court-packing press conference and naturally gave him hell … https://t.co/XBbmY0QEM7
— Josh Chafetz (@joshchafetz) April 22, 2021
And by “gave him hell” he means “repeat Democrat talking points that don’t square up with reality”:
I assumed he was a Dem tracker reciting talking points.
Not sure what’s more embarrassing: that he’s an actual law student who doesn’t know the difference btwn filling vacancies & packing the Court.
Or that his law prof is proud of his ignorance & thinks it’s “giving me hell.” https://t.co/1TYl7041wQ
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) April 23, 2021
Cruz wasn’t alone:
“Check out my poorly-educated student getting owned by Ted Cruz.” https://t.co/YQVl32W84D
— The Partyman (@PartymanRandy) April 23, 2021
You're bragging about your student not knowing the difference between court-packing and filling vacancies. Not sure I'd brag about that.
— Beth Baumann (@eb454) April 22, 2021
My dude. Adding seats to the Supreme Court and filling judicial vacancies as obligated by the Constitution are entirely different. Your students, as future practitioners of the law, should know this.
— Rachel Bovard (@rachelbovard) April 22, 2021
Not sure where the “hypocrisy” is. There is an explicit difference between filling vacant seats and *adding* seats. Sigh.
— Erielle Davidson (@politicalelle) April 22, 2021
Not sure I'd brag about a law student who doesn't know the difference there.
— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) April 22, 2021
“Owning yourself to own the cons,” or something.