,
10 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
I'm trying and failing to figure out what the hell this even means, how this would even work. The depths of stupid in this single sentence are giving me vertigo.
Set aside the implied fantasy that a moderate SCOTUS nominee would win the overwhelming support of senators of both parties. I'm tempted to write fifty tweets on just how wrongheaded it is in how many ways, but let's just set it aside.
Is he saying he wouldn't nominate a justice unless two thirds of the senate was committed to voting for him or her? Committed to voting for him or her before he or she was nominated? Because that makes no sense at all.
Let's say he means that he wouldn't nominate anyone without PRIVATE commitments from two thirds of the senate. What if he couldn't find someone who would receive such commitments? He'd just...leave the seat open? For his whole term? Really?
"Judge Blahblahblah is an esteemed jurist, a renowned scholar, and an impeccably honest human being. But I've only convinced a dozen senators of the opposing party to vote for her, so I'm going to leave the seat vacant forever."
Or maybe he means he'd only nominate someone he EXPECTED to win sixty-seven votes. What happens if it becomes likely they'll only get sixty-six? Does he pull the nomination? How does he imagine that going over with the American people?
And what if—as, you know, tends to happen A LOT—a significant number of senators don't announce their intentions until the last minute? What if the sixty-seventh vote in favor flips while the vote is happening? What then?
The whole point of having the required margin of a vote set in advance—of having the boundary between winning and losing built in—is that you go out, you do your best to win, and if you win, you win.
If he was calling on the senate to raise the bar, I'd almost sort of respect that. But instead he's saying "although there is a set standard for confirmation of SCOTUS nominees, I would repudiate such a victory unless it met a different arbitrary standard I just invented."
It's not that this is a bad idea—although yes, dear god, it's a terrible idea—so much as that it's just ridiculous. Incoherent. Stupefying. Gah.
