. They made it easier for a simple majority of 51 to approve judicial and other appointments, other than those to the Supreme Court. and perhaps they felt they'd launch the first of these strikes in an increasingly polarized Washington. and made it easier for the majority party to make Supreme Court appointments as well. Indeed, they make the Democrats pay for the rule change every time they appoint a reactionary judge at any level.
As Republicans threaten to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat, the Democrats can retort by promising toif they regain the majority. The concept is the same as the rule used seven years ago but would be extended from personnel appointments to policy. It would arguably be the melted final straw for any need for bipartisanship in Washington.
And it would be just another sad but now necessary breaking of norms in an era of breaking stabilizing norms. If the Democrats made this threat, Republicans would in theory cave on the Court replacement because they'd want to have a stake in future legislation. But Democrats may pause because they've seen how the rule change has come back to bite them. It's fun when you're in the majority, but you're not always in the majority.
Whatever swords the Democrats have, they're not as sharp as the Republicans'. Whichever party wins the post-RBG fight, the country will have lost once again.
MichaelGordonUS Nah, Amy Barrett will do a good job. I call that a win.
MichaelGordonUS Watch Donald’s automatic hand motions when he says he wants to pick a woman judge. 😳