I do think Mitt is an "honorable guy" and I admire him on all sorts of dimensions.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:12 amMDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:08 am Petey, it's not really a surprise that Mitt came down where he did.
Here's the bottom line, raw power rules.
Promises, norms and precedents don't actually matter unless the voters say so.
It's ugly and definitely contrary to the intent of the Founders, but unless the voters decide otherwise, the system is going to be far more nakedly about the raw exercise of power going forward.
so...expect the Dems, if/when they win the Senate and WH, to dramatically exercise their power to address all of the aspects of the system which disadvantage their interests politically.
There are no norms and precedents that will be sacrosanct.
Again, unless the voters decide otherwise.
Some can be done simply with majority votes, some may require Constitutional Amendments. But most can be done legislatively, with various rules that enfranchise American citizens who do not currently have representative and electoral college rights, eg Puerto Rico, DC, etc, or have proportionately less than their populations, actions which make voting nationwide far easier to do (VRA), ETC. Choice will be legislated nationally, health care nationally.
That's what Republicans have long stewed about, that the SCOTUS has 'legislated' instead of Congress...they're going to get what they asked for.
So, do understand that the Trumpist GOP have understood this going in. They knew the tide was going against them on all sorts of issues given where younger people are and the changing demography of America, and they're desperate to hold onto whatever power they can...there's truly nothing off the table.
Can't you at least say Mitt is an honorable guy and you have no doubt he is doing an honorable thing? Is he now part of the fetid underworld of raw political power? Just yesterday he was 'noble'.
Here's my call on Mitt. He's a good guy. Full stop. One of the rarer ones. I've changed my opinion on the guy a few times. But I think he shows he's a good to great family man which always tells me a ton about any person.
I think Trump's character irritates him to no end, but he was game to go work for the guy, so perhaps Mitt does have the touch of ego to him that we don't often see.
Mitt ultimately is a patriot and a conservative, and SCOTUS is the bulwark between America staying great versus America going down a sewer pipe (which liberal justices would no doubt enable). The guy made the right call.
But I wouldn't call this decision "noble", much less wise. I think he found a logical "precedent" rationale to enable a lifetime appointment for a conservative judge to SCOTUS, a silver lining in the disgusting Trump mess. He had not previously established a position that would make him, like so many others, a bald-faced liar, so he can hold his head up as 'truthful' as he made this decision.
Where he lost me re "noble", and certainly not wise, was the notion that the Garland decision, which he was not part of, was justified by the fact that a different party was in control when the nomination was made, including the power to deny even a hearing. If that's the case, then he's saying that the Senate has no obligation to hold judicial hearings, including for SCOTUS, at any time. Has nothing to do with anything other than the power to deny. Clearly not the intent of the Founders and the Constitution, but consistent with the raw exercise of power that is possible under this logic.
But ok, then what he's really saying is that raw power is all.
Which would be an honest position. But very damaging.
I'd have preferred him to say that he thinks the Garland decision was ill-founded, but his decision is solely about whether the current situation should allow a President and Senate to place a Justice on the court when they have the votes to do so.