Thread by @jholbo1

Gregg Nunziata responded politely so I'll be polite about why this seems to me to make absolutely no sense whatsoever. His view seems to me typical on the right but it encodes two fatal errors. One factual, one moral. 1/

https://twitter.com/greggnunziata/status/1487554362956300288

The factual error concerns the Bork case. He was rejected on a bipartisan basis due to character issues (Nixon-Watergate baggage) and ideological extremism (toxic opinions and he wasn't shy to share). He was arrogant and entitled. So he got shot down. 2/

And then Kennedy sails through, easy as pie, so there's no doubt the problem really was Bork, not Reagan getting a pick. Far from being the first sign of dysfunction, let alone war, this is a dream of the system working. 3/

Nunziata says there's something about Biden vs. Hatch on the floor back then that makes it ugly. I dunno what that bloody shirt might have been but I don't see that it can matter. No one says 'remember something-something Biden said'. They say 'remember Bork'. 4/

But if you actually DO remember Bork, the point flips and you have to say, in fairness, 'Oh, the Dems were right, or at least reasonable. If R's are all 'Bork!' as a pretext for 'returning fire' then they were the ones who started it. The D's shot at Bork.' 5/

Nunziata says it's the case that, in '87 a 'new explicit precedent' was set but what he says about it is strange. Something like: D's can express their partisanship (their philosophies?) but R's have to conceal their partisanship (their philosophies?) 6/

https://twitter.com/greggnunziata/status/1487582473718542337?s=20&t=gcduzdSKGslDxhbRindSDA

That is, R's have to be 'stealth candidates'. I don't see how this can possibly be a 'new explicit precedent'. No one ever said, explicitly, R's have to be stealth candidates. Also, the bad thing R's usually say started with Bork is not that but, instead ... 7/

that here we see the start of today's sad tradition of straight party-line votes to deny a President a pick. But Bork is not that. (If it weren't for counter-examples, some folks wouldn't have any examples at all. R's crying 'Bork!' are that.) 8/

But let me turn to the nonsense that gets frosted on top of falsehoods about Bork. The proposition is: D's have 'little standing to decry R's returning fire'. This makes no moral sense even granting the (false) claim about Bork. 9/

Suppose, for the sake of argument, D's made it political, starting in '87. Ever since, it's been partisan, D's and R's trying to get their picks. Nunziata seems to be saying that D's, because they started it, are obliged to not point this out, even though he agrees with it. 10/

The way it's going is: D's say R's are partisans. R's say they are just originalists, textualists, 'calling balls and strikes'. Nunziata agrees with the D's, but thinks, because they started it, D's have to accede to the R lie that it is NOT partisan. 11/

That makes no sense. Whoever started whatever, we should tell the truth about what's going on, not tell nonsense lies about it. It is NOT the case that R's are returning fire for Bork. But, even if that were it, it IS the case that R's are utterly partisan about judges. 12/

So the D's are telling the truth - they say the R's are utterly partisan about judges - and the R's are lying - they say R's are just calling 'balls and strikes'. But Nunziata is saying that, because Bork, D's have to go along with the R lie about this. Makes no sense. 13/

I guess that wasn't all that polite, after all. I used the word 'lie' a lot. But isn't that actually what Nunziata is saying? All the FedSoc 'balls and strikes' guff is a noble lie, in revenge for Bork. And D's, because Bork, have to swallow the lie and bite their tongues? 14/