A stupid critique of Harry Reid and the use of the nuclear option in 2013
OK, just a quick one because I'm grumpy. Er. Than usual.
I keep seeing the following foolish argument: The Democrats would be in a better position now if Harry Reid hadn't used the nuclear option in 2013. By using the nuclear option in 2013 for the DC Circuit, the argument goes, the Democrats escalated the judicial conflict, and if they hadn't done that, they would have been able to filibuster Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
So, you see, it's all Reid's fault for not surrendering the DC Circuit. The key to dealing with the modern GOP, and bullies generally, is that you just need to show maximum weakness, and then they'll respect you and leave well enough alone!
As a side-note, my longtime critique of Reid was that he caved too easily.
But as I explained, he couldn't do that with the DC Circuit. Regardless, let's just take a moment to think about this foolishness. Think about McConnell. He announced a total blockade of the DC Circuit Court. When Scalia died, he announced a total blockade, inventing a new rule: no confirmations during election years, and now, completely predictably, he's going to confirm someone within weeks of the election because the president is of his party.
Does anyone seriously think that if Reid had refrained from using the nuclear option in 2013, he would have let the Democrats filibuster a Supreme Court nominee?
Let's remember how the nuclear option came about. It came about because the Democrats filibustered a handful of lower court nominees in 2004, and Republicans threatened the nuclear option. The Democrats caved to the threat of the nuclear option in exchange for the promise that maybe, in some hypothetical circumstance, the Republicans might let them filibuster something. Maybe. Am I the only one who remembers this? This was the "deal" put together by the "Gang of 14" in 2005. I called it a total capitulation. And I was right. As soon as the Democrats were in the majority, the Republicans-- led by McConnell-- started filibustering everything, including nominations. They just didn't get into lockstep, for total blockades until 2013.
The idea that Reid refraining from the nuclear option would have kept filibustering on the table for Democrats on Gorsuch and Kavanaugh neglects both who McConnell is as a politician, and the history of the nuclear option.
Pay attention to history, and pay attention to what Mitch McConnell is. The axe-murderer of democracy. Reid couldn't have changed things in 2013.
You know who could have?
Ruth. Bader. Ginsburg. By being less selfish and stupid, and stepping down when Obama could have named a replacement. I know y'all want to do this cult-of-personality thing around her, but stop it. Stop. It. The only one on the left who put you in this position is Ruth. Bader. Ginsburg.
So. If her last words really were that she didn't want a replacement named by Trump, before the election... you know who she had to blame? Herself. Too bad so many others have to suffer for her ego, blindness and stupidity.
Don't blame Reid. Blame Ginsburg.
I keep seeing the following foolish argument: The Democrats would be in a better position now if Harry Reid hadn't used the nuclear option in 2013. By using the nuclear option in 2013 for the DC Circuit, the argument goes, the Democrats escalated the judicial conflict, and if they hadn't done that, they would have been able to filibuster Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
So, you see, it's all Reid's fault for not surrendering the DC Circuit. The key to dealing with the modern GOP, and bullies generally, is that you just need to show maximum weakness, and then they'll respect you and leave well enough alone!
As a side-note, my longtime critique of Reid was that he caved too easily.
But as I explained, he couldn't do that with the DC Circuit. Regardless, let's just take a moment to think about this foolishness. Think about McConnell. He announced a total blockade of the DC Circuit Court. When Scalia died, he announced a total blockade, inventing a new rule: no confirmations during election years, and now, completely predictably, he's going to confirm someone within weeks of the election because the president is of his party.
Does anyone seriously think that if Reid had refrained from using the nuclear option in 2013, he would have let the Democrats filibuster a Supreme Court nominee?
Let's remember how the nuclear option came about. It came about because the Democrats filibustered a handful of lower court nominees in 2004, and Republicans threatened the nuclear option. The Democrats caved to the threat of the nuclear option in exchange for the promise that maybe, in some hypothetical circumstance, the Republicans might let them filibuster something. Maybe. Am I the only one who remembers this? This was the "deal" put together by the "Gang of 14" in 2005. I called it a total capitulation. And I was right. As soon as the Democrats were in the majority, the Republicans-- led by McConnell-- started filibustering everything, including nominations. They just didn't get into lockstep, for total blockades until 2013.
The idea that Reid refraining from the nuclear option would have kept filibustering on the table for Democrats on Gorsuch and Kavanaugh neglects both who McConnell is as a politician, and the history of the nuclear option.
Pay attention to history, and pay attention to what Mitch McConnell is. The axe-murderer of democracy. Reid couldn't have changed things in 2013.
You know who could have?
Ruth. Bader. Ginsburg. By being less selfish and stupid, and stepping down when Obama could have named a replacement. I know y'all want to do this cult-of-personality thing around her, but stop it. Stop. It. The only one on the left who put you in this position is Ruth. Bader. Ginsburg.
So. If her last words really were that she didn't want a replacement named by Trump, before the election... you know who she had to blame? Herself. Too bad so many others have to suffer for her ego, blindness and stupidity.
Don't blame Reid. Blame Ginsburg.
Comments
Post a Comment