Nope. Haynsworth was subject to what I think were unfair attacks, to be sure, but those attacks convinced double-digit numbers of Republican senators to reject him. I dislike the result but can’t argue it, any more than I argue Abe Fortas’ rejection for CJ.
Not going to “get over it,” because then the retaliation the GOP did becomes the new “first blood,” and the narrative transforms. No thanks.
Yup. The “procedural filibuster” is the bloodless disintegration chamber in this analogy.
DeVos
Double-digit is the test? Gosh, I wonder why.
If Republicans are supposed to be the Christian party, this is pretty much the opposite of Christ’s teachings. Shouldn’t you guys be turning the other cheek rather than seeking revenge? If both sides continue with this attitude where is the end? Do you see any way to return to normal governmental functioning on this path? I only see mutually assured destruction.
Shouldn’t we wait until “a crackpot” gets nominated?
Context to which I was responding:
DeVos not nominated to SCOTUS.
But I’ll admit she’s a piss-poor choice. And we only got two votes against her. Still, there’s a gulf between the lifetime appointment to SCOTUS and the serves-at-will-and-not-longer-than-the-President Cabinet jobs.
Nope, Republicans are not supposed to be the Christian party.
And, yeah, we’re well on our way to eye-for-an-eye and the whole world is blind.
But why don’t you exhort your side to de-esalate?
Good idea. What could go wrong.
Concedely there is an arbitrary choice to any threshold. But I picked double digit because, from a psychological point of view, in a base-10 numbering system, getting to double digits feels like a meaningful divide. And ten senators is ten percent of the Senate, which also feels meaningful for similar reasons.
Yeah, sure, that’s the reason. Hey, 5 is a good number from a psychological point of view, wouldn’t you agree? 5 Senators, 5%. Nice, round numbers. Let’s go with 5.
I was responding to what you said, in this discussion, that’s happening right now. Why would I address Democratic Senators in a response to something you wrote in this thread. What would make you think any of them would ever see it? Seems like a big waste of time, not really sure how you think that makes any sense.
When you post here, you reply to what you are quoting, I don’t see any appeals to any of your elected representatives, so is this an expectation that only applies to me?
Well, in your defense, there is evidence we could get at least 3 Senators to vote against a crackpot. In fact, we could probably get twice that number! Or are we not discussing that elephant?
OK, you disagree with yourself. Gotcha.
Because otherwise, what did you mean, that the Dems wouldn’t be able to derail a crackpot SCOTUS nominee like Moore or Owen if they forced the GOP to blow up the filibuster now?
If the GOP can be counted on to provide enough votes (assuming a Dem party united against the nominee) to derail a crackpot SCOTUS nominee on a straight majority vote, then the problem you brought up doesn’t exist.
Sure it does. Because your crackpot might not be mine.
For example, I agree Moore is a crackpot, but not Owen. The problem I highlighted there was in the context of the Democrats’ point of view. Losing the filibuster now, on a nominee that does not seem like a crackpot TO THE DEMOCRATS, means a later nominee that does seem like a crackpot TO THE DEMOCRATS may well be confirmed.
But your question to me takes the “crackpot” designation out of that context and assumes it as a factual assessment, accepted by all.
Relax. He’s just drawing his line in the place best calculated to advance Republicans’ interests, and he will fluidly adopt or discard such arbitrary standards in service to that goal.
What elephant?
My question was, “Why don’t you exhort your side to de-esalate?”
Your side includes elected officials, to be sure, but isn’t limited to them. People here are on your side.
Five is a round number, to be sure. But it’s an inexact number. If I say, for example, I’m five miles away, you might think I’m 6 or 4, because 5 is a convenient catch-all. But if I said I’m six miles away, you’d more reliably infer I had more exacting data.
Again, though, I agree that as a matter of strict analysis, any threshold is arbitrary.
Ok everybody should de-escalate.
Your turn now. Will you do the same? Or is it only our side that needs to care about such things? Or shall we all just go ahead and play the Armageddon game until the whole place is left in smoldering ruins? Who wins in that scenario? Cockroaches?