I like Paul Waldman's take in yesterday's Plum Line (WaPo) -- D's messaging about why we are making these changes is because the R's left us no choice. "They made us do it" is what the R's say all the time about why they are changing the game. We have to do the same. Republicans worked for decades to make democracy less fair. When D's win, we can say: "We have to do this (increase # of Supremes, term limits for Supremes, add DC and PR as states, etc) because the R's put their fingers on the scales so they could win all the time, and they were mean to us too!"
Here's my problem with the "balance" argument: Had Obama seated Garland, the court would have become a 5-4 liberal majority. Then, had Hilary won the election, she would have nominated two additional justices - to replace Kennedy and RBG. That would have resulted in a 7-2 liberal court. Had that happened, would liberals/progressives have been concerned about balance?
Great insights into the importance of the approach and the messaging. Thank you.
I like Paul Waldman's take in yesterday's Plum Line (WaPo) -- D's messaging about why we are making these changes is because the R's left us no choice. "They made us do it" is what the R's say all the time about why they are changing the game. We have to do the same. Republicans worked for decades to make democracy less fair. When D's win, we can say: "We have to do this (increase # of Supremes, term limits for Supremes, add DC and PR as states, etc) because the R's put their fingers on the scales so they could win all the time, and they were mean to us too!"
I came across this post today, and I'm curious about your thoughts. Sorry to link to FB but I don't want to copy/paste something I didn't write.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10104472056584607&id=5616939
There are a few interesting ideas there, I think?
Here's my problem with the "balance" argument: Had Obama seated Garland, the court would have become a 5-4 liberal majority. Then, had Hilary won the election, she would have nominated two additional justices - to replace Kennedy and RBG. That would have resulted in a 7-2 liberal court. Had that happened, would liberals/progressives have been concerned about balance?