It's hard to advance an argument where Republicans are hypocrites for advancing a nominee now that doesn't also imply Democrats are hypocrites for making an argument in principle that a nomination should wait until after the election.

In practice, people value processes because they believe those processes tend, on average, to yield substantively good results. But in fact very large shares of the electorate no longer believe the US process typically yields good results. So process arguments aren't persuasive.

Very large numbers of people feel that the process itself is bad and unreliable and in fact has harmed them and their interests rather directly.

And while I know it's unpopular to continue to assert that 100% of politics is actually about abortion it remains the case that the lynchpin of American politics has that a large share of Americans correctly recognize that the government is sanctioning mass murder.

It is a bit irritating to be like, "Even though it's mass murder we will try to work through the system" for many decades and slowly, methodically, legally, peacably capture the judiciary...

and then at the end stage have the other side belatedly wake up and be like "Actually the judiciary which implemented this campaign of mass murder was undemocratic and illegitimate to begin with."

Look if capturing the court isn't viable as a means of abolishing *checks notes* the annual murder of about 600,000 babies then what would you propose is the viable means of doing so. It shouldn't require an amendment to achieve what is clearly a legislative question.

I mean heck it shouldn't even require a court decision but hey here we are post-Roe the court decided to throw itself off this cliff despite being warned of the consequences.

The day Roe was decided there was only one possible outcome: a generations-long war against it. This wasn't some huge mystery at the time and it has not ever been mysterious since. There will be no peace without victory or absolute defeat.

And absolute defeat of course is not possible in a democracy, so, eternal conflict until we happen, somehow, to win, it is!

Here's the reality:

The court is an upper-upper house of parliament, you control it by controlling the largest number of states at approximately random intervals. Those are rules set by the court itself for many generations.

Ergo, when you have a chance to get somebody on it, you get them on it. "Process," when we're not talking about anything actually illegal or facially unconstitutional, is not compelling since we all agree the outcomes are monstrous.

They can attempt to do so. In order to preserve the murder of hundreds of thousands of babies, it's probably in their interests to do so. I also think it'll lead to the same ultimate equilibrium. https://twitter.com/YaBoiShagNasty/status/1308393561428287489

The GOP has tightened its hold on SCOTUS despite no improvement in the pro-life share of the electorate. It's about the geographic makeup of the Senate. You add two seats, you'll delay us by a decade and then we'll take your two seats.

I mean look the path out for Democrats here is to get more moderate Democrats. But this is hard to achieve. Paradoxically, there ARE a lot of Democrats in red/purple states who could be turned out to vote for pro-choice Senators and actually win....

but they have racial politics that aren't gonna fit with the current Democratic coalition. As that coalition becomes more defined by racial politics, and thus by geography, the pro-choice movement's Senate position will get weaker.

"If you ban abortions, you will disproportionately save poor and minority babies from being murdered!"

is not as compelling an argument against abortion as many Democrats seem to find it https://twitter.com/gedaliap/status/1308395718110064640

Yes, I understand that if we make it illegal to murder babies that some rich people will still find ways to murder babies, whereas the limitation of baby murdering will mostly result in less murdering of poorer and non-white babies. Factcheck, true.