Democrats have more legitimate ground for grievances over the nomination of Kavanaugh and even Robert Bork than the GOP does.
Bork was defeated but that the GOP ran and defended him is insulting. Kavanaugh? They pushed a drunken rapist through just to prove they could.
Those were both bad nominations, but the central tenet of the GOP post-Nixon has been that to accept limits on either corruption or depravity is to accept limits on power, which is the only sin they recognize. So the GOP is "aggrieved" at being challenged on them.
The mythic version of the "borking" of Robert Bork has only grown over time, each telling he becomes more a shining paragon of virtue and each year the Democrats become an even more merciless, pitiless band of witch-hunting inquisitors.
Heck, put Clarence Thomas in this category. He was confirmed, wasn't he? That the Democrats insisted on dealing -- at all, even ineffectually -- with credible allegations of misconduct is the "grievance".
A GOP grievance is "They tried to hold us accountable." or even "They paid lip service to holding us accountable."
To accept limits on corruption or depravity is to accept limits on power, and therefore the GOP rejects all limits on corruption and depravity. No accountability.
If the GOP are so rightly aggrieved over the results of the Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas confirmation hearings, I think we should extend a peace offering. Let's just undo them. Let those poor defeated men get back to the ruins of their destroyed lives and try to salvage something
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.