Both parties deserve blame for worsening the judicial confirmation process. One of the few times its accurate to say both sides. But do you really think McConnell would've let Dems block Gorsuch indefinitely if only Reid had let GOP block lower court judges indefinitely? Come onhttps://twitter.com/varadmehta/status/1036657529445670913 …
BTW, here's a good example of "had no choice"-type rhetoric (from someone I respect). Dems "forced Rs to finish the work Harry Reid started." It was a choice. If you like it, defend on the merits. Insisting it was forced upon them abdicates responsibility.https://twitter.com/NoahCRothman/status/1036977314360373248 …
-
-
Nope. There's no unilateral disarmament. Dems don't get to ram their judges through and then expect Rs to surrender. So it's correct to say no choice. Rs play the same game as Dems, and now Dems are mega butthurt about it.
-
Doesn't that mean Dems had no choice when Rs blocked every lower court nominee? To be clear, I'm disputing a single point of yours: Marking the start of this cycle at Nov 2013. As if that was an actual choice, while escalations that came after aren't.
-
It goes back to the late 80s.
-
Yes. And each escalation is a choice.
-
Each escalation is also functionally a signal that the other side is trying to ice you out. It's how the parties communicate. You don't stand back and say "let's compromise" with a guy who just, from your perspective, stole your lunch ands is geared up to do it again.
-
But just like with military border escalations... there's always the option to back down. It doesn't have to start a war.
-
Exactly. That's my criticism. Actually, there's a third option, which is don't escalate, but don't back down. In judicial nom context: Don't change the rules, follow precedent, but if others break the rules creating new precedent, follow the new rules. Nothing more. No escalation
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I suspect
@NoahCRothman would echo your sentiment here that twitter privilege's brevity over nuance. Forced here meaning something closer to "put Rs in a position without viable political alternatives." -
That's reasonable. But I still dispute the claim that there's no alternatives. Maybe this is why I'm nonpartisan. This idea that if one party does something bad the other party is forced to do something worse makes no sense to me.
-
Hmm. What choices should R's have made instead? What does this alternative history look like?
-
I would've liked: 2013: Gang of 14-style compromise. Some Obama noms through, most disliked noms withdrawn, no nuclear option. 2016: Normal process for Garland, even if Rs voted him down in the end. 2017: Just honesty. Rs wanted Gorsuch. Weren't forced to change rules. Chose to.
-
They were forced to change the rules since the Dems did it in 2013. As I said, no unilateral disarmament. As for 2013, Dems screwed themselves by blocking Miguel Estrada. No incentive for Rs to cooperate then.
-
This gets to your point about how there's always a grievance for the other side to point to. But now that cycle isn't going to be broken until both sides are destroyed, probably.
-
Just imagine what the GOP will do if Democrats try to pack the court. And if they're successful?
-
I've been pretty nervous about attempted court-packing ever since some on the left began openly advocating it. Hard no. But if it happens, I expect many "we had no choice after Garland" arguments, and I'm going to be really annoyed by them.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.