Quo Vadis, Democrats?

[Barrister]

I think there can be many reasons to explain why she did what she did. I'm not sure why what Joan highlighted should spare her from her detractors.

I don't think he said it should.

[DGuller]

The important thing when your democracy is under siege is to point fingers and lay blame at the people who may have been imperfect. Don't get distracted by trying to figure out how to fight back, you have to focus on what actually matters - that is, tearing down allies and compatriots who are insufficiently pure or were insufficiently wise in the decisions they made in the past.

I'm totally with you in the spirit, but that said, I think it's more nuanced than this.  US politics has been a cold civil war for a while, and in war, if one side has suffered a crushing blow, of course they have to regroup ASAP because otherwise capitulation is inevitable. 

That said, you need to understand what went wrong to get you there, and that involves criticism of your own side.  As far as RBG, definitely the one thing that went wrong for Democrats was not realizing they were in fact in a cold civil war, and they never stopped playing by norms when it was clear that their enemy was waiting for the most productive time to break them to gain the first-breaker advantage.

[frunk]

The problem with the RBG criticism is that the current destruction of democracy is coming about specifically because of Trump.  Yes the Republicans allowed it, but any other candidate wouldn't have pushed the norms as fast or as hard as Trump.  Trump wasn't even taken seriously until 2016, at which point there's no question that RBG retiring would not have resulted in getting a successful replacement in.  That means RBG would have needed significant foresight to think that the situation would deteriorate so badly that her dying 5 years in the future would help lead to this crisis in 10 years.

To me RBG not retiring is only a peripheral problem, much worse was the Senate not removing Trump after January 6th, Obama not appointing Garland to the USSC when the Senate failed to fulfill their role to advise and consent, and the disinterest in the Democratic leadership to organize a coherent and consistent resistance to Trumpism from 2016 to today.

[Oexmelin]

Agreed on all the last points. Though, again, Garland was a terrible choice to begin with.

[Valmy]

So Hakeem Jefferies went to Silicon Valley to beg Elon's friends for help.

So frustrating.

[Oexmelin]

 

Seriously, that's also an actionable item: ask your local Democratic leadership to campaign for removing this guy.

[Valmy]

Seriously, that's also an actionable item: ask your local Democratic leadership to campaign for removing this guy.

I will see what I can do.

[frunk]

Agreed on all the last points. Though, again, Garland was a terrible choice to begin with.

Terrible choices have been all the Republican ones.  Garland is definitely a cut above that.

[Admiral Yi]

Republicans blocked the appointment of milquetoast supreme Garland, though one has to wonder if that would have made a difference - still, it may have given the US someone more competent as Attorney General.

Are you claiming that the lack of a confirmation for Garland was a result of Democratic ineptitude?

[Valmy]

I think he was saying that Obama should have just put him on the Court anyway saying that Congress didn't do what it was supposed to do or something.

But there is no time limit in the Constitution. That was the loophole the Senate used.

[Iormlund]

That means RBG would have needed significant foresight to think that the situation would deteriorate so badly that her dying 5 years in the future would help lead to this crisis in 10 years.

You don't need foresight to acknowledge that elections are sometimes won and sometimes lost.

She gambled. And you all lost.

[crazy canuck]

That means RBG would have needed significant foresight to think that the situation would deteriorate so badly that her dying 5 years in the future would help lead to this crisis in 10 years.

You don't need foresight to acknowledge that elections are sometimes won and sometimes lost.

She gambled. And you all lost.

Again, people who make this claim are forgetting that the Senate was preventing all judicial appointments.  There was no gambling here.  There was reality.

[Iormlund]

That means RBG would have needed significant foresight to think that the situation would deteriorate so badly that her dying 5 years in the future would help lead to this crisis in 10 years.

You don't need foresight to acknowledge that elections are sometimes won and sometimes lost.

She gambled. And you all lost.

Again, people who make this claim are forgetting that the Senate was preventing all judicial appointments.  There was no gambling here.  There was reality.

When Kagan was confirmed RBG was almost 80, and a twice cancer-survivor.

[Barrister]

That means RBG would have needed significant foresight to think that the situation would deteriorate so badly that her dying 5 years in the future would help lead to this crisis in 10 years.

You don't need foresight to acknowledge that elections are sometimes won and sometimes lost.

She gambled. And you all lost.

Again, people who make this claim are forgetting that the Senate was preventing all judicial appointments.  There was no gambling here.  There was reality.

The Senate had never refused to hold a vote on a USSC candidate before.

That's how you got such odd figures as David Souter - a Republican nominee confirmed by a Democratic senate, who turned out to be a mostly-reliable left-wing vote.  Bush 41 felt he needed to get a compromise candidate - which was what Garland was.

(You still had the filibuster back then, but the dynamic was the same)

[crazy canuck]

That means RBG would have needed significant foresight to think that the situation would deteriorate so badly that her dying 5 years in the future would help lead to this crisis in 10 years.

You don't need foresight to acknowledge that elections are sometimes won and sometimes lost.

She gambled. And you all lost.

Again, people who make this claim are forgetting that the Senate was preventing all judicial appointments.  There was no gambling here.  There was reality.

The Senate had never refused to hold a vote on a USSC candidate before.

That's how you got such odd figures as David Souter - a Republican nominee confirmed by a Democratic senate, who turned out to be a mostly-reliable left-wing vote.  Bush 41 felt he needed to get a compromise candidate - which was what Garland was.

(You still had the filibuster back then, but the dynamic was the same)

You are now going full MAGA, either that or you have a bad memory.