As a general statement, sure. But we've seen McConnell undertake unprecedented actions, including on judicial confirmations. So I'm very skeptical of the argument that he was constrained by precedent, but had no choice after his predecessor broke a precedent.
-
-
Replying to @NGrossman81 @varadmehta
"Had no choice?" I suppose you've introduced an argument easier to discredit. So, good job?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HillSpiaire @varadmehta
I'm very skeptical of the argument that McConnell was constrained by precedent and would have accepted a Democratic minority blocking a Supreme Court justice he liked in the name of precedent, because he broke precedent on judicial noms in the recent past. Better?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NGrossman81 @varadmehta
Much better. I agree with your geberal point. It's not really a McConnell specific issue. He and Reid, now Schumer, have eroded the process in innumerable ways. They're all culpable to some degree.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HillSpiaire @varadmehta
Good, glad I could clarify. Twitter privileges brevity over nuance.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Nicholas Grossman Retweeted Noah Rothman
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 …
Nicholas Grossman added,
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NGrossman81 @HillSpiaire
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
It's a prisoners' dilemma. Don't hate the players, hate the game.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
That's a big part of where I'm coming from. I hate this game. Escalation after escalation, always insisting other people left them no choice, as the process descends further and further into farce.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I mean, but you kind of *don't* have a choice. A player playing the "always defect" strategy is screwing himself. If there aren't incentives to promote future cooperation, defecting will continue. I wish it were otherwise, but
2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
They've been playing an All-D strategy for a while. Last cooperation on judicial nominations was in 2005. I think you mean All-C. Without some defections, there's no incentive to compromise because other player can always take advantage of you.
-
-
Damnit you’re right, I do mean all-C.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.