Many at the Bulwark fail to understand how demoralizing it is to constantly hear about how Democrats are supposed to follow one set of rules while Republicans have none. Please spare me whatever obscure thing Biden once said taken out of context, or Bork getting voted down because Republicans voted against him too. Dems would never have …
Many at the Bulwark fail to understand how demoralizing it is to constantly hear about how Democrats are supposed to follow one set of rules while Republicans have none. Please spare me whatever obscure thing Biden once said taken out of context, or Bork getting voted down because Republicans voted against him too. Dems would never have refused a vote, and the media would have been foaming at the mouth if they tried. Let's stop sugarcoating what happened. They stole two Supreme Court seats. Obama went out of his way to appeal to moderates by nominating Garland. Yet Trump, who lost the popular vote, doesn't try to unite the country with a consensus pick. No, only Dems are required to do that. Then, while people were voting, they rushed through Barrett after insisting a President can't fill a seat in an election year. It's gaslighting on steroids. Let's be clear this is not a legitimate Supreme Court, and we should not accept it as one. By doing so, we're legitimizing the GOP's anti-democratic tactics.
I respectfully disagree that it is not a “legitimate Supreme Court.” What McConnell did was terrible and shows his all or nothing view of our system. But he did it within the rules and procedures of the court. We may not like that it was possible but the rules permitted it. If we don’t like it we need to change the rules. It’s the same when people say Hillary won the election in 2016. No, she didn’t. Our president wins by the electoral college count, not popular vote. It’s a stupid system but Trump won. We have to accept reality if we are to know how to change it.
I understand your point. I should have said norms instead of rules because our system depends on standards and leaders of virtue who are willing to follow those norms. It's like when Trump refused to release his tax returns. There wasn't a law to force him to comply. But I think it's untenable to continue on a path where we require Democratic supporters to abide by standards and norms (i.e., not using words like illegitimate) as if keeping the status quo will prevent things from worsening. We're supposed to believe the Supreme Court is apolitical when Republicans for years have told us why capturing the courts is of utmost importance. We're supposed to accept its legitimacy when several members lied under oath about the precedent they were appointed to overturn. It's time for us to recognize the fight we are in, not the one we wish we were having.
Well, technically speaking, it's not against the "rules" to increase the size of the Supreme Court; certainly nothing in the Constitution. The Democrats merely need to get enough presumably Democratic senators to vote to do so.
Absolutely. Democrats could totally expand the court, make DC and PR a state, etc with 60 solid votes. Whether they can elect 60 Dems and whether all of them would pass such legislation is another matter.
I hear you, but the problem with that logic is that it is simply going with anything the rules technically allow.
If I'm not mistaken, we are 6 pardoned assassinations away from having a 9-0 liberal supreme court. Then, with house, senate, and whitehouse, all manner of various laws, extra states, and other changes could likely install a permanent democratic majority through technically allowed methods.
That's absurd of course, but my point is to show the problem with casting aside social mores of avoiding rank hypocrisy and using every technicality to turn an advantage. Our society functions on more than just the letter of the law, and the more we strip away what I'll call good sportsmanship, the closer we get to where we can't live together successfully.
Many at the Bulwark fail to understand how demoralizing it is to constantly hear about how Democrats are supposed to follow one set of rules while Republicans have none. Please spare me whatever obscure thing Biden once said taken out of context, or Bork getting voted down because Republicans voted against him too. Dems would never have refused a vote, and the media would have been foaming at the mouth if they tried. Let's stop sugarcoating what happened. They stole two Supreme Court seats. Obama went out of his way to appeal to moderates by nominating Garland. Yet Trump, who lost the popular vote, doesn't try to unite the country with a consensus pick. No, only Dems are required to do that. Then, while people were voting, they rushed through Barrett after insisting a President can't fill a seat in an election year. It's gaslighting on steroids. Let's be clear this is not a legitimate Supreme Court, and we should not accept it as one. By doing so, we're legitimizing the GOP's anti-democratic tactics.
I respectfully disagree that it is not a “legitimate Supreme Court.” What McConnell did was terrible and shows his all or nothing view of our system. But he did it within the rules and procedures of the court. We may not like that it was possible but the rules permitted it. If we don’t like it we need to change the rules. It’s the same when people say Hillary won the election in 2016. No, she didn’t. Our president wins by the electoral college count, not popular vote. It’s a stupid system but Trump won. We have to accept reality if we are to know how to change it.
I understand your point. I should have said norms instead of rules because our system depends on standards and leaders of virtue who are willing to follow those norms. It's like when Trump refused to release his tax returns. There wasn't a law to force him to comply. But I think it's untenable to continue on a path where we require Democratic supporters to abide by standards and norms (i.e., not using words like illegitimate) as if keeping the status quo will prevent things from worsening. We're supposed to believe the Supreme Court is apolitical when Republicans for years have told us why capturing the courts is of utmost importance. We're supposed to accept its legitimacy when several members lied under oath about the precedent they were appointed to overturn. It's time for us to recognize the fight we are in, not the one we wish we were having.
Well, technically speaking, it's not against the "rules" to increase the size of the Supreme Court; certainly nothing in the Constitution. The Democrats merely need to get enough presumably Democratic senators to vote to do so.
Absolutely. Democrats could totally expand the court, make DC and PR a state, etc with 60 solid votes. Whether they can elect 60 Dems and whether all of them would pass such legislation is another matter.
I hear you, but the problem with that logic is that it is simply going with anything the rules technically allow.
If I'm not mistaken, we are 6 pardoned assassinations away from having a 9-0 liberal supreme court. Then, with house, senate, and whitehouse, all manner of various laws, extra states, and other changes could likely install a permanent democratic majority through technically allowed methods.
That's absurd of course, but my point is to show the problem with casting aside social mores of avoiding rank hypocrisy and using every technicality to turn an advantage. Our society functions on more than just the letter of the law, and the more we strip away what I'll call good sportsmanship, the closer we get to where we can't live together successfully.