Read on Twitter
Ok, so let’s talk about this @JVLast piece at @BulwarkOnline and why it’s wrong.
Thread
as the kids say https://thebulwark.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-and-the-coming-political-crisis/
Thread
as the kids say https://thebulwark.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-and-the-coming-political-crisis/
He sets out the meat of his argument here with three possible scenarios. As far as timing goes, he’s right. These are it. But there are some implicit assumptions hanging in the background here
If NONE of the pathways leads to a good resolution, then the reality here is that Ginsberg and her replacement aren’t the real issue here. If nothing the GOP does will change that, then the choice doesn’t matter. They should pick who they want.
If we’re already at the point where a SCOTUS nomination fight is a black swan event *no matter who the replacement is* then we’ve already crossed the black swan rubicon. If that’s true, the GOP should push through a nomination now without concern based on JVL’s logic
BTW: I don’t think this is true. It’s just more “end of the Republic” nonsense that you can throw a dart and find in any op-ed from a certain segment of political punditry. They’ve written the same thing after EVERY major news event of the Trump era.
This part of JVL’s piece is just ahistorical nonsense. Spare me.
The court won’t lose legitimization. And if a nomination process *that follows the rules in the constitution* leads to “delegitimization,” then what you’re admitting here is...
The court won’t lose legitimization. And if a nomination process *that follows the rules in the constitution* leads to “delegitimization,” then what you’re admitting here is...
... that one side only believes in the legitimization of the court when things go their political way.
Elections have consequences. The GOP has had a majority in the Senate since 2014. They held onto that in 2018. They’ve bent ZERO constitutional rules here.
Elections have consequences. The GOP has had a majority in the Senate since 2014. They held onto that in 2018. They’ve bent ZERO constitutional rules here.
Republicans aren’t the ones talking about packing the court, impeaching justices, or burning everything down when they follow the rules. That’s only one side of the aisle. And they were doing that BEFORE yesterday.
The most important case in SCOTUS history is arguably Marbury vs. Madison. That result was political.
FDR outright BULLIED SCOTUS.
Modern politicized SCOTUS began when the liberal court started legislating in the 20th century. And amped up with Roe v. Wade.
FDR outright BULLIED SCOTUS.
Modern politicized SCOTUS began when the liberal court started legislating in the 20th century. And amped up with Roe v. Wade.
We are at this moment because for 50+ years the conservative legal movement has fought an uphill battle trying to STOP the over politicization of the court. And now it has that shot, using normal constitutional rules, and we have a political crisis?
Spare me.
Spare me.
It the roles were reversed and Dems had held the Senate in 2014, or they lost control bc of Trump, JVL and those like him wouldn’t be making these arguments. They’d be tut-tutting the GOP for embracing Trumpism and losing elections. Dems would be within their right to block.
And that’s the real issue here: if the roles were reversed, Democrats would not hesitate to replace RBG. Everyone knows this.
So it’s only bad when Trump/GOP do the same thing.
So it’s only bad when Trump/GOP do the same thing.
This is not an argument btw. It’s a straw man. Point out in the constitution or American history where one word of this mattered in a nomination process.
It hasn’t. No seat has ever been stolen. Want power in nominations? Win Senate seats. Full stop.
It hasn’t. No seat has ever been stolen. Want power in nominations? Win Senate seats. Full stop.
This was an interesting passage to me.
What’s the powder keg and why would it blow? It would all be leftist anger. And somehow it that’s supposed to matter.
Again — if this is where we are, then we crossed that bridge a looong time ago.
What’s the powder keg and why would it blow? It would all be leftist anger. And somehow it that’s supposed to matter.
Again — if this is where we are, then we crossed that bridge a looong time ago.
And why are we more concerned about a powder keg on the left? Why is their anger more important?
Probably because JVL thinks we’ll see big time violence. He never addresses whether or not that violence is good/warranted. Seems worth investigating imo
Probably because JVL thinks we’ll see big time violence. He never addresses whether or not that violence is good/warranted. Seems worth investigating imo
He ends up here with the “solution.” The Ginsberg out.
This is wrong too. At what point did a SCOTUS seat become an aristocratic seat that people could hand down? Merrick Garland was no Scalia. And Clinton in 2016, was willing to go further than Garland to the left
This is wrong too. At what point did a SCOTUS seat become an aristocratic seat that people could hand down? Merrick Garland was no Scalia. And Clinton in 2016, was willing to go further than Garland to the left
Many people pitching this argument were very concerned about Ginsberg’s wishes but cared nothing about keeping Scalia’s seat conservative
Which gives away the game. Republicans are expected to “maintain balance” when they nominate, but when it’s Democrats they get what they want
Which gives away the game. Republicans are expected to “maintain balance” when they nominate, but when it’s Democrats they get what they want
This isn’t a political crisis. It’s a political temper tantrum by ideologues who are mad they lost an election and Republicans, here to cash the win, are following the rules.
And again, by JVL’s logic, we’re already at this point. He seems to accept that it’s *better* to have right-wing outrage than that on the left. That makes no sense at all. If the left riots no matter what the GOP does, besides nominating RBG 2.0, then why take that seriously?
I mean, this is what they’re saying about ACB *now* — she’s a bad nominee because she’s a practicing catholic. https://twitter.com/davidharsanyi/status/1307359028901806082
Last point: McConnell isn’t hypocritical. He said in 2016 that opposing parties could not vote on a nominee. There aren’t opposing parties this time.
That’s not principles. It’s just hard core politics that, if flipped, would go the same way.
That’s not principles. It’s just hard core politics that, if flipped, would go the same way.
I’ll hit all this in the podcast this week. Link up top. Will probably hit in the newsletter too, sign up and keep and eye out. /end.
