Dan, you're playing games about what underlying principle you're articulating here. If you're going to do that, at least spare us the phony sanctimony.
-
-
Replying to @ThePlumLineGS
I'm literally arguing that the decision who to nominate was affected by elections, which were decided by voters. That did not used to be such a rage-inducing thing to say.
5 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
If you are telling me straight out that you are *not* operating from the original principle that I initially defined, then I will accept that and move on.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ThePlumLineGS
My immediate point was the former. But obviously, I also think that the Senate is entitled to make decisions based on who the voters elect to the Senate. I start with the premise of the legitimacy of the American system.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
The word "entitled" needs refinement here. If the argument is that it's perfectly legitimate for the Senate majority to do whatever it wants to do provided it technically *can* be done, then let's just have that established up front.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @ThePlumLineGS @baseballcrank
It sure sounds like he's saying he was fine with Harry Reid nuking the lower-court filibuster, and will have no problem when Schumer does it next year for legislation. And then passes a new VRA and expands the Court. It's what the voters elected the Senate to do, right?
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @jessewegman @ThePlumLineGS
Had Reid not broken that line, Republicans never would have done so. Terrible decision. So much of how American politics is today is Harry Reid's doing.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Omfg. This is so so so offensively stupid. Right—Mitch McConnell would never have done such a terrible thing. Hey Dan—so the Rs were **refusing via filibuster** to confirm *three* DC Circuit judges. Not one, three. If you were them, what would you have done? Say, “Thats cool”?
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Ask Miguel Estrada. Republicans didn't start this. Remember, Mitch can only do what he has the votes in his caucus to do.
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
No no no no. That’s not a good faith strategic answer—that’s angry partisan’s answer. You’re right! Dems started this with the circuit courts—see how easy it is not to be a hack? But, at *that* moment in time, what should Reid have done? Just let Rs take down three DC CC judges?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Reid should have listened to McConnell, who warned him exactly what the consequences would be, publicly, on the floor of the Senate.
-
-
You don’t say that while you are blocking three judges to the second most important federal court. McConnell just wanted those judges for free. That’s not how it works. And Rs would have gotten their scotus justices anyway, one way or another. Base would have gone crazy.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 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.