"It's called precedent," the Senate Judiciary Committee chair said of violating the same rule that Republicans ignored to move forward with judicial nominees.
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.
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.