"It's called precedent," the Senate Judiciary Committee chair said of violating the same rule that Republicans ignored to move forward with judicial nominees.
Like I said I get the argument but presumably Democrats were mad originally because they thought it was bad process to break the rules like that right?
Imagine Republicans pass a law that says Republicans don’t have to pay taxes. When Democrats come to power they shouldn’t just pass a law saying Democrats don’t have to pay taxes, they should undo the Republican plan and make Republicans repay the taxes they didn’t pay. Meaning, they put into place a structure that undoes and disincentivizes the bad action rather than just also taking part in the bad action.
Because the Republican ploy is to destroy norms and make it all about power politics, so “haha I’m doing it back you are so owned!” actually plays into their hands. You’re legitimizing the rule breaking they did, proving that it’s OK to do in the future too.
If they break the rules, they get this criticism. If they don’t break the rules, they get accused of being spineless and unwilling to fight. They really have no way to win, do they?
Nobody votes based on judiciary committee rules, so I don’t think criticism really matters. It’s more about protecting the institution of the rules and you can’t do that by breaking them.
Like I said I get the argument but presumably Democrats were mad originally because they thought it was bad process to break the rules like that right?
Imagine Republicans pass a law that says Republicans don’t have to pay taxes. When Democrats come to power they shouldn’t just pass a law saying Democrats don’t have to pay taxes, they should undo the Republican plan and make Republicans repay the taxes they didn’t pay. Meaning, they put into place a structure that undoes and disincentivizes the bad action rather than just also taking part in the bad action.
Because the Republican ploy is to destroy norms and make it all about power politics, so “haha I’m doing it back you are so owned!” actually plays into their hands. You’re legitimizing the rule breaking they did, proving that it’s OK to do in the future too.
If they break the rules, they get this criticism. If they don’t break the rules, they get accused of being spineless and unwilling to fight. They really have no way to win, do they?
I mean, if they’ll be criticized either way, the course of action that accomplishes something seems preferable.
I agree. But I don’t see the “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” attitudes toward them helping the goal of fending off fascism.
Accomplishments give us something to run on.
Nobody votes based on judiciary committee rules, so I don’t think criticism really matters. It’s more about protecting the institution of the rules and you can’t do that by breaking them.
The rules have already been broken when it suits Republicans. Reciprocity continues to be fair play.