Tuesday Twitter roundup

Map ink on his hands:

Frankly Scarlett, those satellite hearings *should* have been postponed until Tuesday. Dangerous roads are a serious impediment, and will negatively affect the number of people and diversity of opinions at said hearings. But putting roadblocks in the way of the public is par for the course for the GOP, and I'm sure they view this snowfall as a benefit, and not a problem.


Dallas has been living in a partisan fantasy world for years. 90% of the rhetoric coming out of his mouth is intentionally deceptive, meaning he lies for a living. You just can't fix that, but in the minds of his fellow Republicans, it's not a detriment, it's a benefit.

Okay, I really hope Greg Brannon gets a lot of support from you crazy people who will then decide to stay home on election day and refuse to support Burr. But damn, some of you people are dangerously stupid.

It's not a glitch, it's genetic. That boy ain't right...

I can't believe either one of them is still in the race, much less leading it. It makes me unstable just thinking about it...

Of course he does. Never mind the fact that neither he nor the lawn mower man are remotely qualified to render a legal opinion; his moneymen tell him what they want, and he's ready to repeat their words verbatim. Also, with that "beard" or whatever the hell he calls it, he looks more like a pedophile than a policy maker. Yeesh.

Constitutional law versus severely strained reasoning:

Faires argues that the new election process does not satisfy the state constitutional requirement that justices be “elected” by qualified voters — pointing out that when the constitution uses the term “election” it refers to contests between candidates and when it uses the term “referendum” it refers to “for or against” ballots.

“If a retention election satisfies the constitutional requirement of an election for this one office, such a referendum could be used for all other offices for which the constitution by the same language requires election – governor [for example], or attorney general,” her attorney Michael Crowell notes in papers filed with the court.

If the up-or-down vote for justice does constitute an “election,“ Faires adds, state lawmakers still violated the constitution by adding an additional qualification for the office – namely, that a candidate must be a sitting justice.

In response, the Board of Elections argues that Faires lacks standing to challenge the law because she has no constitutional right to run for the Supreme Court and that the new law does not add a new qualification for that slot – noting that candidates in the open election that would follow if the incumbent loses in the retention cycle would not have to be sitting justices.

First of all, I have a feeling there would need to be a few smoking guns found in the hands of a sitting Justice before a majority of voters would reject him/her. And second, the BoE fails to mention that McCrory would choose Edmunds' replacement if they did, and that "open" election would have to wait for a while. This is one more case where Republicans attempted to rewrite the Constitution without putting it before the voters, and it should be soundly rejected before they double-down in the current session.

You might want to stick to writing really bad books, pal.

Don't consider this an endorsement, just food for thought: Not only did Chris serve in the regular Army, he's still serving as a Major in the National Guard. I know many of you don't consider military service as being a "critical" qualification for public office. But in this particular case, challenging the personally-declared "friend" of veterans Richard Burr, who has done more damage to veterans rights than we have time to discuss here, it's time to once again revisit what I told you back when Cal Cunningham put his name forward: This may be the only way to defeat Burr. That is all.

On that preachy note, here's your Onion:

And that plan doesn't include you dipping your finger in there every forty-five minutes!