Right. Breaking precedent lessens the political cost for the next guy. That's the calculation.
-
-
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 -
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.