They got their digs in: It’s mostly the Republicans’ fault for their treatment of Merrick Garland, even though the Dems’ hands are a little dirty as well. But still.
Now, however, partly as a result of its own actions, but more important as a result of increasing polarization in Washington and the nation as a whole, the court is devolving into a nakedly partisan tool.
But this nomination, despite the false vilification of Judge Neil Gorsuch, isn’t the hill to die on.
That leaves it to Democrats to consider whether the filibuster is worth saving. Whether legitimately outraged at Mr. McConnell’s treatment of the Garland nomination or opposed to Judge Gorsuch on the merits, if they lose the filibuster now — as they will — then it is not available to use against another Trump nominee, who may be objectionable not only to Democrats but to a few Republicans, as well.
The passive characterization of the court devolving into a “nakedly partisan tool” shifts the hypocrisy off politicians and the team fans, but then, even the New York Times grasps the damage hysteria will do to the legitimacy of the judicial branch.
What matters, of course, is not some arcane voting process in the Senate. What matters is that Americans believe they are governed by law, not by whatever political party manages to stack the Supreme Court.
No, the editorial board couldn’t bring itself to write the words, but the message is clear. Maybe there is hope for America?
Or is it one of the signs of the Apocolypse?
Crap. I hadn’t thought of that.
Does it even really matter? The Republicans are itching to utilize the “nuclear option” so that they don’t have to deal with the Democrats for anything in the future. Even if the Democrats don’t filibuster Gorsuch, they will likely not get to filibuster anybody in the future, regardless of how badly they want to do so. Color me cynical, but it isn’t going to make one bit of difference. Gorsuch will be confirmed and we’ll be seeing a much more partisan court for the foreseeable future.
Are you familiar with the logical fallacy, “begging the question”? Be very careful with it, as it can do terrible things to a human brain.
Says the guy who just can’t give up a particular newspaper reading habit that is slowly driving him insane. *
Just like the Supremes legitimacy springs forth through the actions of its actors not the institution itself, although there is something about the smell of the ink from the quill pins and newsprint that sucks ‘um in generation after generation.
No a high like it in the world I am told.
Sad really, so many zombies out there, curled up in the corner, staring off into space stroking their quills and crisp newsprint while sniff sniffing away on all that ink.
Day after day, year after year…
*This has been a particularly indulgent past few weeks. I would post up the number of snorted lines referenced from that newspaper, in the last few weeks, but I fear my nasal passages might explode.
Why John, I had been thinking the same thing [reading habit driving him insane] for quite some time. At least we know one person who actually reads the op/ed.
SHG, may I humbly suggest you switch to the Obits?
You’re killing me.
I would also hope that the republicans remember there is another term that goes with nuclear option. MAD.
Someday, someone will look back on the Garland gambit and write a detached, thoughtful scholarly article about its impact. Today is not that day.
“Detached … scholarly” is redundant.
I wish that were true, but find it quite the opposite these days.
I recall the Republicans got very MAD when The Reid Rule came into effect. I don’t recall if the NYT editorialized against it.