Read on Twitter
1/We spend a lot of time (often appropriately) worrying about the destruction of norms. But we should also care about the new ones that replace them. This is 
under the 
, I l know, but Romney's statement today laid bare how swiftly norms can be created-- and out of thin air.
under the , I l know, but Romney's statement today laid bare how swiftly norms can be created-- and out of thin air.
2/This claim just isn't true: "The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party's nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own." I know the point is to erase the GOP's refusal to consider Merrick Garland. But..
3/ You can read the details here: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/mar/22/mitch-mcconnell/mitch-mcconnell-exaggerates-tradition-not-confirmi/ But the reality is that there have been exceedingly few vacancies during pres election years, particularly during divided government.
4/But broader point, Romney (& GOP) are creating a new norm out of (more or less) whole cloth. We have this notion abt how long it takes for norms/practices to take root-- especially in the Senate. But legislators are adept at creating new practices to meet their political needs.
5/ And then rationalizing and cloaking new practices designed to advance your own or your party's interests as "tradition" or "historical precedent." At the end of the day, it's just plain old institutional hardball--with often indelible policy and political consequences for all
