Quote:
Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard
I think that the issue is you don't understand the purpose of the senate. The Republicans have utilized the senate in an effort to weaponize the courts for a generation. Through their refusal of due process for a democratic president they have created a precident that within a few short years they have ignored in order to fill the courts with underqualified idealogues. If they had gone ahead with the Obama Garland nomination I would agree but they didn't, and they actively blocked it.
Now you are quick to play the both sides game but it sounds ridiculous. Because it is merely one side asking for the same rules and the other being intransigent at best and dictatorial at worst.
|
The essential problem with BoLevi's position is that he's assuming that the Democrats would be doing the inverse of what the Republicans are doing if they had the ability - i.e., that if they had been able to confirm Garland in 2016, and RBG had still died when she did, the Democrats would be making the argument that no replacement should be nominated and that the next guy should do that. And hey, maybe he's right. We'll never know.
But suppose a politician wanted to pass a new law that, for the purposes of an example, made it illegal to wear a t-shirt on the weekend. Suppose I fought tooth and nail to oppose that law, but wasn't able to stop it, and weekend t-shirt wearing became illegal. Then the following weekend, I go outside in my long-sleeved shirt only to see that same politician out wearing his t-shirt, completely shamelessly breaking the law he just forced through.
Am I a hypocrite for being angry, and saying, "what the hell, you just passed a law that prevented me from wearing a t-shirt like I wanted to, and I see you just flaunting the law openly? That's crap. You passed the law against my objections, at the very least you should now have to obey it"? BoLevi seems to think so. I don't.