Hello, I know I'm a day late to this party. I hope you will indulge some thoughts that I have about Senator Sasse's "civics lesson." (I promise I'm only imposing this on you because several listeners have asked). Let's see...the proper gifs to use...

Senator Sasse begins by saying that civics and politics are different. Civics are what we're all supposed to agree on. Stuff like "Congress writes laws. The Executive Branch enforces laws. Courts apply them."

All correct and oblivious to the fact that this Congress (specifically the Senate) really doesn't pass laws. And this Executive has a very casual relationship with laws. And this hearing would not be happening if people like Senator Sasse believed that courts ONLY apply law.

Civics, he says, should be stuff we all agree on like religious liberty.

It would be wonderful to extract from "stuff we all agree on" that our rights end where others' begin. That your religious views, for example, do not burden mine about marriage and life.

Politics, he says, (using the word "jack wagon" an uncomfortable lot) is underneath civics. It's the legitimate stuff we fight about, but civics are more important.

I would SUPER love for this to be true, and it would involve things like congressional oversight of the executive

Then on to a long discussion of religious liberty. I don't think anyone actually disagrees that your soul is not the government's business. (I look forward to Republican Senators' passionate defense of a Muslim nominee down the road).

Sen Sasse says we should all reject judicial activism.

The judiciary is not a block of progressive and conservative votes.

Again, would LOVE that. And I would love to understand why confirming this justice right this minute is so important if we all reject judicial activism.

The anecdote to judicial activism is originalism -- "the old idea...that judges don't get to make laws." That's an unfair simplification of what originalism means.

Sen. Sasse finally says we should all reject court packing as a partisan "suicide bombing" that would end the deliberative structure of the Senate and make everything less interesting for all Senators.

Sarah and I have a lot to say about court packing in Friday's episode. Between now and then, I would genuinely like to hear a few meaningful examples of this Senate engaging in good faith deliberative processes over the past 12 years or so.

In all seriousness, I write this as someone who desperately wants to be amen-ing Senator Sasse. I don't want courts that are super-legislatures. I want a Senate that is the world's greatest deliberative body. I want the 3 co-equal branches operating in their lanes.

But it's not happening, and I do not lay all or most of the responsibility for that at the feet of Democrats. So I found this "civics lesson" (and I LOVE CIVICS LESSONS) condescending and depressing and gaslighting. The end.