No, it should not be framed this way, as Democrats have expressed a different rationale, namely: If McConnell proceeds to apply different rules than he did in 2016, he will have effectively stolen at least 1 seat. A reasonable response to this would be to expand the court.
The court expansion question has *only* come under debate due to McConnell's own actions. Democrats are generally not in favor of expanding the court just for the sake of expanding the court. Some, however, are in favor of this action *contingent upon* McConnell's behavior.
Given the GOP applied one set of rules in 2016 and have now reversed those rules, it is basically inarguable that they, not Democrats, are trying to pack the court. These actions are enough of a breach of the democratic contract that they merit a response.
It's either that Gorsuch's seat is illegitimate given the GOP's 2020 logic or Coney Barrett's seat would be illegitimate given the GOP's 2016 logic. This level of defection from the democratic contract is untenable. & Democrats have been clear that it has gone too far.
I would like to point out that there is an extreme imbalance in the media's framing here. There is a ton of focus on whether Biden would support court expansion & basically *zero* focus re: that McConnell, right now, is changing his own rules in order to pack the court.
It is McConnell who is wielding power to undermine our democracy. It is McConnell who has been hypocritical re: nominations in an election year. It is McConnell who has repeatedly defected from democratic norms. That deserves at least as much attention as how Biden may respond.
And, again, the *correct* framing is that Biden's position (& the position of Congressional Democrats, who actually have the power to do this) is entirely contingent on how McConnell proceeds.
Democrats are in a peculiar position in a two-party system, as they both want to advance their own goals *and* uphold democracy, whereas the GOP fights to advance their goals by *undermining* democracy.
This places Democrats at a perpetual disadvantage and it also means that, at some level, they tend to tolerate some level of norm breaking behavior on the part of the GOP w/out mounting an equivalent norm-breaking response.
But the contrast between the GOP's 2016 SCOTUS rules & their 2020 SCOTUS rules is goes too far. There comes a point where reluctance to respond to defections is no longer protecting our democratic norms, but allowing them to be violated to the extent we no longer have a democracy
This is, at least, what the rationale of some Democrats seems to be. We can argue about whether they were previously too timid at a diff time, but their reasoning now is clear: McConnell has gone too far if this confirmation goes thru & extreme measures are necessary in response
McConnell created this situation & McConnell is perpetuating it. Even if you believe defections from norms are bad (e.g. court expansion), it is reasonable to argue that allowing *one* side to repeatedly defect w/out consequences is worse.
That is the correct framing.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I keep coming back to this comment and thinking about how so-called "conservatism" is visually signaled in the South through one symbol and one symbol alone: the confederate flag.
I keep thinking of my black friends in places like TN & GA. Of one friend who told me she wouldn't go to areas around plantations b/c she was afraid she would be lynched. Of the time I saw a truck emblazoned w/ confederate flags backing into a black woman on a crosswalk.
It's obscene & frankly fascistic to indicate black people can only be safe & welcome if they signal certain political values. In this same vein, it's important to remember that Graham's brand of "conservatism" is inextricably linked to the oppression of black people.
It's amazing how Trump's ship is sinking and instead of diving for a lifeboat, people like Lindsey Graham and Mike Lee are like, "Nah, I'm just gonna be honest and say I love fascism."
Just so we're clear: this is not a misstep from someone who lives in the South. If you need context: I had a black friend who wouldn't drive to certain places around Nashville b/c she was afraid she would be lynched. There's the context.
I don't know why some on the left have decided that the best means thru which to achieve their goals involve being a jerk on the internet. It's such a counterproductive method that it makes me think those who engage in it are more excited about the means than the goal.
I typically think people should try to align their methodological approach w/ their ideological aim. So, if your ideological aim is to advance compassionate causes, you'll be more successful in doing so when you act like you are, in fact, a compassionate person.
I don't always agree w/ AOC's approach to politics, but I think progressives would do well to listen to her comments about creating an inclusionary space where people feel safe.
Lots of people think progressivism is scary. Why engage in tactics that support that view?
I wonder why this could possibly be. Not like any political leaders explicitly targeted Whitmer in their anti-lockdown rhetoric.
Seriously, though, I am furious. We don't know all the details at this point, but it's not wrong to speculate these people were partly inspired by Trump & anti-lockdown rhetoric more broadly. & it's entirely correct to speculate he specifically targeted Whitmer b/c she is a woman
The doctor will not give the time/day of the positive diagnosis. He only gives the time of the "repeated test." Further, he will not give the time of the last negative test. This means, at the very least, they are being cagey about the timeline.
We don't know the exact timeline b/c the doctors said "72" hours & the WH corrected that to "3 days." I do not, of course, trust the WH, but these conflicting statements means it's hard to pin down the timeline.
We *do* know they are being evasive about it.
They are also being evasive about whether Trump has been on oxygen. If he hadn't been, I'm pretty sure they would have told us. These answers read very much to me like he was on oxygen at some point.