3 ms·
Precedent is tricky. Democrats removing the filibuster for SCOTUS judges came back to haunt them. Did it though? Legal precedent is different (for now) from po
by ryanwaggoner 6y ago
Precedent 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.