Inasmuch as Hiroshima is the lesson of the guy who first cracked another guy’s skull with a rock. But you might be missing my point which wasn’t about the arms race to destroy democracy, and instead about what matters and what doesn’t in 2017 politics.
Merits are out. Partisan emotion is in. I don’t think it’s entirely obvious how that plays in both policymaking and elections to come. But I don’t think democrats will take long to learn the lesson, unfortunate as that might be for where it will take us.
Still trotting out that horseshit line of reasoning. Bork was rejected on a bipartisan basis. So what’s the lesson, then, that you’ve learned? “If we want a partisan hack on the court, better make sure his hackery isn’t a matter of public record?”
The lesson is that the process is political. That’s why complaints that Bork got a hearing so Garland should have gotten a hearing are hollow. The level of parity expected in treatment is too fine. Their nominations were treated similarly enough in that each was dispatched based on politics, not on their judicial qualifications. Once it was established that nominees would be subjected to the political process, it doesn’t matter hardly at all whether they get a hearing or not, get a vote or not. The only consequence is political so if there aren’t votes to penalize senators for behaving this way, then that’s the way it will be.
If one side makes it political, fine - the other side will too. One side uses the rules, fine, the other side will too. The only way to stop that is to change the rules, and not the rules of the senate - change the rules of the constitution. Because as it stands, the senate can simply refuse to confirm anyone or confirm anyone because screw everyone, that’s why. And that would be within the rules.
If we accept that ignoring the Garland nomination wasn’t that big an anomoly then the idea that the Supreme Court nomination is political is even more established a hundred years before Bork.
If the argument is that “Democrats politicized the process because Bork!” that’s just demonstrably wrong, because he was rejected on a bipartisan basis, and other, prior nominations had the exact same conduct. “The President is entitled to place whomever they want on the court!” is even further afield.
The treatment of Merrick Garland was absolutely unprecedented, and anyone who can claim otherwise with a straight face doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
Oh, we have. Many, many times. On multiple threads. With a complete straight face. And the weight of history behind the argument.
The Garland treatment was unusual in modern times. Not unprecedented if you look at the full history of the court.
But that is neither here nor there. The GOP chose a political route to block Garland. It was a gamble, with the risk of a Clinton victory and Dem sweep meaning an even more liberal justice could be appointed instead of Garland. The GOP won that bet, and given the makeup of the Senate their seeming long shot bet may pay off nicely for their perspective.
And so it goes. Unless We the People are willing to step up and amend the Constitution to change the nomination and confirmation process then occasional political concerns will take precedent over straight up judicial qualifications.
Do you understand the difference between “We’re going to use this rule” and “we’re going to abuse this rule”?
In my eyes, sinking a radical judge with a more-than-checkered past is using the rule. Sinking a moderate, centrist “compromise position” judge, then insinuating that no matter who the president nominates, they will be unacceptable is abusing the rule.
Filibustering an extreme or unqualified nominee to a cabinet position is using the rule. Filibustering any nominee to a cabinet position in the hopes of essentially nullifying a cabinet you don’t have the votes to abolish is abusing the rule.
Filibustering an extreme or unpopular piece of legislation is using the rule. Filibustering essentially any legislation you see, up to and including your own damn bill, is abusing the rule.
Sure, in both cases, both sides are technically within the bounds of the law. Both are technically “using the rule”. But typically, rules come attached to norms, which are just as important in a democracy. Placing country before party, being willing to work together on some basic level, accepting certain bipartisan arbitrators of policy like the CBO or the massive consensus of international scientists, refusing to take certain advantages that are excellent for your party yet make governance impossible… These things matter damn near as much as the rules themselves, because without them, the rules of our political system are effectively broken. They don’t work. They can’t work.
As far as I can tell, we’re about to get a ninth Supreme Court Justice whether or not the Democrats try for a filibuster; the interesting question is whether they’re going to try for a filibuster, not whether we’re going to get a ninth in short order. (Not that it really mattered, since – as far as I can tell – things would’ve worked just fine with seven or eight, we could’ve kept on like that indefinitely; but we don’t have to find out whether I would have been right about that, since we’ll appparently be right back to nine in no time flat; that’s all just going smoothly.)
That doesn’t, as far as I can tell, “make governance impossible”. It doesn’t, as far as I can tell, put us in a Don’t Work And Can’t Work situation. If the Dems, starting today, start acting every inch the obstructionist that the GOP did during Obama’s time in the White House – ignoring norms while staying “within the bounds of the law” – then what, exactly, changes, in comparison to a world where every Dem expresses a willingness to put country before party and work together?
Aren’t we just as likely to get Garland on the Court either way – since the political system is motoring along just fine regardless? And isn’t Congress preparing bills for the President’s signature as we speak – and won’t that still be the case even if the Dems in the House and Senate violate every norm they can while staying within the bounds of the law, instead of playing When They Go Low We Go High?
But government is only going to “work” now because one party controls the House, Senate and Presidency. That doesn’t happen all the time. Under a mutual “obstruct everything” game plan it’s the only way government can work.
But we actually had a working government for years as Republicans in the House and Senate did their level best to obstruct the President; it’s demonstrably possible. It led, I guess, to the current situation, where now the GOP has all three – but we still had laws getting enforced and courts handing down rulings and so on and so forth back when “obstruction” was the cri de coeur du jour.
There’s a rather high level of judicial and board vacancies atm. Yes, things have trundled along but a system where blocking appointments is the norm rather than the exception is not sustainable. Lurching from one debt ceiling crisis to the next is also unhealthy.
I think the difference is who has political advantage. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
As much as I think we as a society would all be better off if we could simply agree to be good to ourselves and one another, the unfortunate thing is that we often can’t agree on what that should mean. To resolve these things, we establish rules, and laws - we write them down. We recognize that when we do this it may be imperfect or need adjustment so we create a process to change those rules and laws. If some activity violates not the rule or law, but the spirit of them, then the law has the potential to be changed to better reflect the will of the people.
Until that happens, I expect people to act in a manner that follows the rules, and maximizes the potential for them to achieve their goals. Play to win and all that.
I think in recent years there’s been a practice of blocking nominees as a political strategy. While the number of judicial vacancies seems to be growing, it is still a continuation of the strategy that began to take shape under Bush 43. From the wiki:
Anything allowed by the rules, or by achievable rule changes, to either obstruct the majority or subdue the minority, will be within bounds in the short and medium term. Bipartisanship and collegiality is dead, for the most part. It might be debatable which party bears greater responsibility for this state of affairs, but I don’t think it can be denied that both bear considerable blame.
And at this stage, to not go all out against the other side, except in the most unusually popular and non-partisan of issues, is essentially political surrender (and even political suicide), meaning that both sides are incentivized to continue the polarization. I certainly don’t want my side (liberals) to try and “reach out” to the right for compromise when I know there’s no chance of success, and every chance of losing ground in negotiations. The only thing to be done, from my perspective, is maximize turnout, since I think my side probably has more potential voters. If I’m correct in that, that means that the other side, from their perspective, must work to minimize turnout, including by means such as restricting access to the ballot, or else they will lose any chance of future victories at the ballot box nation-wide.
And the bigger the cluster that is created in the process, the more the spectacle, the bigger the voter turnout.
Obviously republicans want the dems to tuck their tail between their legs and let everything go, and let them dismantle the government without a fight. Republicans know that they can’t win if the voters actually turn out. Their voters are all running to the polls because of their terror of sharia law descending upon them. Democrats are trying to motivate their base by hope, rather than by the terror that motivates the right, and it being a less immediate emotion, needs to constantly remind their base as to what the stakes are. Historically, the more people that participate in democracy, the more democrats tend to take and hold office. When the people are poorly represented by an apathetic voter turn out, that’s when the republicans tend to shine.
If this keeps up, and the republicans continue to implement their ideology, and the democrats keep reminding the public that what is coming out of washington is entirely the republican’s agenda, then 2018 and 2020 will go very differently.
Really? That’s your theory? The 2010 midterm election, which flipped the House to Republicans had higher voter turnout (about 5 million more ballots and a slightly higher %) than 2006 election, which flipped the House to the Dems. 2016 had higher voter turnout (in both % and absolute #'s) than 2012. At least for the last decade or so, Democrats seem to have been doing better with lower turnout and losing with higher turnout.
This shows why there is no point in trying to save the filibuster from the Democrat side. The Republicans will not hesitate to nuke the filibuster to change the balance of the court for a generation (neither would the Democrats if the roles were reversed) if RBG dies. Might as well bust it now and if RBG survives this presidency and Democrats get the majority, they can pack the court.