4 ms·
This. Precedent is tricky. Democrats removing the filibuster for judges came back to haunt them. There was a recent (last few weeks) SCOTUS decision that came
by tyre 6y ago
This.
Precedent is tricky. Democrats removing the filibuster for judges came back to haunt them.
There was a recent (last few weeks) SCOTUS decision that came out with numerous opinions by different coalitions. You could tell that they were all maneuvering around this idea of precedent.
Liberal justices who ended up on either side (majority or minority) were couching their votes as upholding a prior precedent, even when they definitely weren't.
Conservative justices ended up on either side of the case while subtly arguing that overturning precedent, or at least modifying it, was okay and normal.
Both are presumed to be setting up for the next challenge to Roe vs. Wade.
EDIT: mistakenly put that the democrats removed filibuster for SCOTUS judges, that was for other nominations
- ryanwaggoner 6y agoPrecedent is tricky. Democrats removing the filibuster for SCOTUS judges came back to haunt them. Did it though? Legal precedent is different (for now) from political precedent, and I think the Republicans have proven they’re happy to steamroll through almost anything they can to seat a Justice. They would have instantly dropped the filibuster if it hadn’t already been done.
- exclusiv 6y agoCome on now. Both sides will do what it takes to get their ideologically bent Justice in place. The leadership on both sides is complete trash anyway.
- AnthonyMouse 6y agoThis is no excuse to be the aggressor. "Republicans might do this" allows you to steamroll over anything set up to force compromise and bipartisanship. Once they're already doing something you don't have to feel bad about doing the same thing when it's your turn, but whoever is the first to tear down a barrier to naked partisanship is the party doing wrong.
- lazulicurio 6y agoAt least with respect to judges, it's not so much "Republicans might do this" as "Republicans are already doing this". Don't want to get too deep into the weeds here, but take a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXl5A9EdLtU&t=2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXl5A9EdLtU&t=2015
- ryanwaggoner 6y agoI totally agree, excellent point. If that was the Democrat justification, it was a poor one. My point was just that pragmatically, I don’t think it bit them in the ass.
- setpatchaddress 6y agoI don't buy that. The Republicans would have killed the filibuster when they were next in power. This was simple acknowledgement by Democrats of the changing nature of the Republican party.
- abduhl 6y ago"We struck first because the other side was going to strike first if we didn't!" Who knew that first-mover advantage existed in politics? Or perhaps this is better seen as a example of mutually assured destruction playing out in real life?
- artificial 6y agoTwo arms of the same beast :(
- dodobirdlord 6y agoYes. The filibuster is allowed to exist because of a mutual consensus to reserve it for contentious issues, and not to simply filibuster 100% of the time. Republicans broke the disarmament agreement by filibustering (essentially) the entire appointment process, so the Democrats re-armed. It just goes to show how important norms and not breaking them are to the functioning of society. If you insist on living by the letter of the law in contravention of the spirit, expect the law to change.
- cmurf 6y agoDemocrats didn't remove the filibuster for SCOTUS judges, Republicans did that (McConnell). Democrats (Reid) removed the filibuster from federal judges, because Republicans were refusing to seat Obama nominees, and over 100 vacancies had piled up.
- akiselev 6y agoDemocrats didn't remove the SCOTUS filibuster, the Republicans did that to get Gorsuch on the bench. The Democrats removed the filibuster for regular judicial appointments during Obama's tenure because Republicans blocked all of his nominations, using the judicial filibuster more in two years than all previous Congresses combined.
- tyre 6y agoyou're correct, I wrote this in too much haste
- inapis 6y agoAs a non-american, it baffles me that even justices are divided into conservative or liberals. Just why? What’s the history here?
- xienze 6y agoIt’s more like “how strictly do these judges interpret and apply the Constitution.” The more creative interpretations are what have allowed for progressive, or liberal rulings.
- kbutler 6y agoAs an American, it baffles me, too. The courts, and in particular the supreme court, have increasingly been weaponized as ways to both advance agendas and preserve inviolable causes of both parties. Since the justices are appointed by political processes, that appointment has also become increasingly political, to the point that people justify voting for a presidential candidate they dislike because of the supreme court vacancies the candidate will presumably be able to fill. The libertarian answer would be to reduce the power and discretion of government officials so it won't be such a high-stakes, partisan process.