I'd be curious to read--from both sides--about a very simple topic when it comes to this Supreme Court debate: raw political power
Let's be honest, the Senate didn't act on Garland and might well act on Trump's selection for a simple reason: Republicans didn't want Obama's judge, they do want Trump's judge, and so they may act on one but not the other.
Under the constitution, this is well within their power! They control the Senate, the constitution gives the Senate the power to confirm nominees, and therefore the Senate confirmed the nominee it wanted but not the other.
I'd like to read the perspective from the left on this basic fact. Obviously, it sucks to be caught on the losing end of this. But the fact that the Senate wants one nominee but not the other is not exactly an inconsequential argument in a Democratic system
I'd also be interested to hear the perspective on the right on this: are there any limits here? It sure doesn't seem like it. And if not, why is it so absurd that Democrats would use their power to pack the court? Isn't it just the same logic of raw power politics?
Anyway, that's what this whole debate is really about: what are the limits of the use of constitutional power to advance nakedly partisan objectives at the expense of precedent. On judiciary, there's been 15 years of tit-for-tat retaliation escalation in this area.
So I'd like to read the best takes that really grapple with all of this. Please share if you've seen something good and thoughtful on it!
Here's one take: the left does not believe the system has democratic legitimacy. Being honest about that position is pretty important, and it has hugely important consequences for the future of the US
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1307647282834276352?s=20
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
