Right. Breaking precedent lessens the political cost for the next guy. That's the calculation.
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 Some Obama noms through, most disliked noms withdrawn, no nuclear option. 2016: Normal process for Garland, even if Rs voted him down in the end. 2017: Just honesty.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.