Thread by @Neoavatara

I actually don't disagree with much @nycsouthpaw says here (other than the caveats @baseballcrank has tweeted out).

That said, here is the reality:

IT DOES NOT MATTER.

https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1013170393442586629

I didn't like it (and at the time, I said it was a mistake). I still think they should have given Garland a vote.

But I am not in power. They are. And they made a decision. They took a gamble.

Here is the reality: That was a BIG gamble at the time.

Everyone assumed Hillary would win and that she would replace Scalia (the most prominent conservative in a generation) with even a far more progressive choice than Garland.

This was the very definition of a high risk bet.

Now, in hindsight, it seems brilliant.

At the time, I thought it was idiotic. Shows what i know.

The fact that it was unprecedented is somewhat irrelevant to the grand scheme of things.

An example that proves this: the fact Democrats considered using reconciliation to pass Obamacare.

I know, in the end, they didn't use it. But what if they had?

That too would have been an unprecedented use of that power for such a massive change to a huge sector of the US economy.

Would liberals have said "Nah, that is not legitimate; we won't respect that law"?

The reality about politics is this:

Qui audet adipiscitur.

He who dares, wins.

Lets note: this has been true for Democrats too.

When Harry Reid nuked the filibuster, progressives CHEERED! They thought he had broken down norms, and that it was a great victory for liberalism.

The fact that it came back and bit them on the ass doesn't change that.

The bigger problem with all this is norms are breaking down on all sides. And Democrats are fools if they don't see that they played a hand in this.

And that all played into Trump, the agent of chaos, coming to power.