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 https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🌊" title="Wasserwelle" aria-label="Emoji: Wasserwelle">under the https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🌉" title="Brücke in der Nacht" aria-label="Emoji: Brücke in der Nacht">, I l know, but Romney& #39;s statement today laid bare how swiftly norms can be created-- and out of thin air.

2/This claim just isn& #39;t true: "The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party& #39;s nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own." I know the point is to erase the GOP& #39;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/">https://www.politifact.com/factcheck... 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& #39;s interests as "tradition" or "historical precedent." At the end of the day, it& #39;s just plain old institutional hardball--with often indelible policy and political consequences for all