Does that work the other way around? Are Republicans that support/supported the shutting out of all Democratic candidates “liars and hypocrites” if they oppose the idea of Democrats playing the same game?
BTW, I don’t think the Democrats will play that game.
But we shouldn’t do it the same way. No blanket refusal-Everybody gets a chance, and if anyone is refused it will be because of lack of merit, not just because we don’t like who nominated them.
We should be better than that.
That’s about not being assholes, not attacking people, and stuff like that. It’s about staying positive when the other side is going negative. And even then it doesn’t always work. (It is what Beto is trying in Texas.)
It doesn’t mean that you let your opponents get away with destroying a norm and you continue following it. It doesn’t mean you keep following the unrlwritten rules when your opponent doesn’t. That just gives you a disadvantage.
Sure, you do have to weigh the action vs the rhetorical advantage of being able to say that you are better behaved than them. But when we’re dealing with a conservative Supreme Court that could undo significant progress on human rights? That kinda matters more.
If they fix the Supreme Court back to neutral while getting voted out of office next time, that’s entirely worth it.
Because we held out hope that “going high” when they went low would be enough to make people figure out which side was the good guys. We had hope for Americans to figure out that republicans were doing something fundamentally wrong in destroying democratic norms, and that if we simply spoke up about it but didn’t actually do anything about it, people would decide they’d rather support the people who kept going high.
This didn’t happen. The “when they go low, we go high” paradigm did not work. It was a failed political strategy that failed because it overestimated who Americans are. Either it overestimated their intelligence or it overestimated their benevolence, or most realistically it overestimated the degree to which anyone cares about process over policy - either way, we’re not a good enough country for “if they go low, we go high” to make any sense as a political strategy. It fails at the ballot box and it super fails when it comes to actually enacting policy.
(You may not have noticed, but the slogan has shifted to “When they go low, we kick them in the head”.)
The video title is actually the opposite - “You go high, we go low”. It’s describing republican strategy. The strategy is painfully simple, and goes like this.
Step 1: Violate some norm of democracy.
Step 2: Wait for liberals to complain about that violation.
Step 2.5: Complain in advance that liberals will commit the same violation
Step 3: When liberals then treat the norm as violated (usually by doing exactly what you did) scream about hypocrisy because of Step 2.
It’s a really basic strategy. And it needs to stop working, or else the republicans will continue to win mostly by being worse people. So far, the cost for republicans violating norm after norm after norm has been… Nothing. And they’ve made it very clear they intend to keep going - it’s worked really well for them so far, why should they stop? As InnuendoStudios puts it, “Democrats seize the moral high ground. But in response, republicans… seize the supreme court.” That’s a shitty trade.
I keep asking - why? Why should we be “better than that”? Our opposition isn’t, and you know what that gets them? A massive load of incredibly important 5/4 judicial wins. What, exactly, does being better than that get us? What do we win when we keep the moral high ground? If it’s just the moral high ground… Well, dude, with all due respect, I’ll trade the moral high ground to reverse even one of the cases mentioned in that Slate article. If “me looking like a bad guy” is what it takes to overturn Citizens United, or the voter purges in Alabama and Ohio, or to make forced arbitration impossible… Well, then pass me the spiked helmet with the skull insignia - I can’t possibly find a way to look worse than Mitch McConnell and his jolly band of fucking nazis.
That slogan I think was more in terms of rhetoric, and election tactics. (ie fake news, voter suppression and dehumanizing of their opponents.) It didn’t mean unilateral disarmament and suicide.
If the sharks and the jets have a fists only rumble and the sharks pull out guns, then there is nothing wrong with the jets shooting back.
Give them hearings – full hearings, fair hearings, TOUGH hearings: run them through the wringer for real, don’t let them sit there proclaiming what a good private school boy they were. Demand full records delivery or no deal. Tell Graham and Grassley to go get crammed if they try to badger either the witness or the other committee members. Take all the time needed to make heads or tails of it and then if and when there is a report, schedule the vote under regular order taking what time is needed to get everyone’s ducks in a row. Before that, tell DJT to find some other source than the Federalist Society list if he wants all that to happen in a reasonable time and warn him that every -single- whining tweet means one legislative day’s postposition for whatever’s next on the docket.
Then vote them the hell down. 
For clarification, I think “stonewalling” can be considered to encompass not only Merrick Garland treatment, but also voting strictly along party lines against confirmation of a nominee (i.e., 51 Democrats or Republicans voting to reject a nominee for sheer reason that he’s of opposite political leaning.)
It would not be hypocritical in the least for a Democratic senate to block all conservative nominees. We thought that that rule change was a bad idea, and we opposed it. But the Republicans went and changed the rules anyway. Given that the rules are now changed, of course we’re going to go by the new rules.
I think it’s extremely unlikely the Democrats will take over the Senate. But if they do, it will mark an unexpectedly strong backlash against Trump. If so, I don’t see why you would expect Trump to remain in office for six years.
But putting that aside, I would say the Democrats would almost certainly stonewall any Trump nominations. Just like the Republicans did when Obama was President.
Republicans should think about that; every bad thing you do will in turn be done back at you. Think about that when you cheer Trump on.
Nonsense. The Democrats aren’t liars or hypocrites; they honestly wished both parties behaved within the rules. But when one party breaks the rules, the other party has to follow, whether they like it or not. You don’t bring a knife to a fight when you know the other guy’s bringing a gun.
It’s like a country having a big army while saying it wants peace. You can sincerely want peace but you have to have an army in case the other country wants war. Your desire for peace is not a lie and your big army is not hypocrisy.
In my opinion, at this point the only acceptable compromise would start with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh resigning and their seats being filled by the proposed bipartisan compromise procedure.
Because otherwise it’s just the Republicans doing whatever they want when they have the power and then turning around and asking for compromise when they don’t. And expecting the Democrats to give them half when they’re in power and get nothing when they aren’t. That’s not equitable trading.
The Democrats shouldn’t give anything more to the Republicans than they get from the Republicans. And promises for future good behavior are meaningless because the Republicans have shown they don’t keep promises. The Democrats should negotiate with the Republicans the way that America negotiates with a hostile foreign power.
If Trump nominates another Gorsuch, he should be given consideration. Another Kavanaugh should be rejected, after a fair hearing.
Except we can have both the Moral High ground and a better court. Look, the Dems dont have to accept any Conservative Judges. They just have to give them a fair hearing and vote no. They cant do what McConnell did to Merrick Garland.
Everyone deserves a fair hearing. Then say yea or nay. It’s perfectly legit to not confirm a nominee. I don’t want to get into the argument of whether or not what McConell did was legal or not, but certainly it is Ok to give a hearing and not confirm.
Then if Trump nominates a Moderate- why not consider seriously?
Yep.
Then vote them the hell down- unless it turns out they are fair and reasonable.
I’m curious: after their judicial confirmation hearings, which recent Republican-nominated justices did you think were “fair and reasonable”? Roberts? Alito? Gorsuch? Kavanaugh?
Roberts, Alito, & Gorsuch were worth considering. That doesn’t mean you have to confirm them. Kavanaugh was beneath contempt.
Yes, block Trump’s nominees unless by some chance he nominates someone like Garland. Trump’s done enough long-term damage to your country.
[QUOTE=SuperDopaminergic;The GOP went nuclear, Dems need to go nuclear in their retaliation.
Of course, the current Democratic leadership will never have the courage to pursue such an aggressive approach, but one can dream…[/QUOTE]
This
Our politics seems to have devolved into a street fight. In that context if you get sucker punched by someone, and when you get back up your first move is to kick him in the balls and then stomp him good to preclude him from getting back up. Only the hypocrites will say you didn’t fight fair.
Agreed, but the OP even considers the democrats voting down a SCOTUS to be stonewalling, and presumably therefore hypocritical or something.