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?
-
-
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 -
Replying to @varadmehta @HillSpiaire
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @varadmehta @HillSpiaire
Yes. And each escalation is a choice.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NGrossman81 @varadmehta
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
But just like with military border escalations... there's always the option to back down. It doesn't have to start a war.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
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
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.