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”?
-
-
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 -
The claim that McConnell wouldn't have nuked without Reid doing it first is either the height of disingenuity or Twitter-egg-level naivete. I'm certain it's not the latter with Dan.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
So, why didn't Trent Lott? Because of his caucus. You seem to believe that caucuses do not restrain Senate Republican action, despite many years of evidence that they do.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Change over time, Dan. If the Rs caucus was so moderate, it would never have blocked those three DC circuit court judges in the first place. Honestly, c’mon.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Oh man that is weak. You really do not grasp the difference between blocking a judge & changing the rules? You really do not remember the publicity blowback in 2005 & how Senate Rs went running scared? Anybody who follows this stuff knows that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Blocking *three* judges! And this was years later. placid. There’s no way Reid was going to let McConnell block those three seats until a GOP president could fill them. Reid was not going to get rolled like that. McConnell kicks him in the nutsand you expected him to say thxs?!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Dems were blocking multiple judges when Rs said uncle in 2005.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
That was seven to a side then to cut a deal. You expected Reid to say years later, “Oh yeah, we owed you three DC Circuit Court judges—sorry, our bad.” Please. It’s al fine. We grow closer to eliminating the anti-constitutional senate super majority.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
"You expected Reid to say years later" - and here, you admit the point I made yesterday, which you scoffed at then: deals contingent on promises of the future are unenforceable.
-
-
No, you forgot: In a subsequent point, I conceded that point as a general rule. (Yes, I do concede fair points—you should try this some time). But only with major provocation. That’s exactly what blocking three DC CC was. And what Barrett is.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
You're denying its application to the very point we were discussing!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
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.