Who here thinks David French would be rallying against Republicans filling RBG’s seat if it were ANY OTHER Republican president making the nomination?
Yeah, we don’t think so either.
This just seems like so much virtue signaling which is honestly so disappointing.
Me, in @Time – a path forward that holds politicians to their promises. If it's just about power, we'll strain this country to the breaking point. But there's a statesmen's path that relies on principles and prudence to decide who holds Ginsburg's seat: https://t.co/Vx6ZyTZ6il
— David French (@DavidAFrench) September 21, 2020
Guy Benson was good enough to put together a thread explaining why David is off the mark here.
I respect David, but disagree w/ his conclusion. There is *zero* comparison between the GOP exercising clear constitutional prerogative, while adhering to strong historical norms/precedent…and Dems’ deeply radical threatened power grabs like *adding SCOTUS & Senate seats.* https://t.co/3xV6oEVS3I
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) September 22, 2020
ZERO comparisons between the GOP doing their Constitutional duty and Dem’s threatening to hurt the country if they don’t get their way. Why anyone would call for Republicans to bend the knee to a bunch of Democrats who tried to ruin a man’s life to keep him from sitting on the SCOTUS is beyond us.
Grrr.
Guy manages to stay polite throughout … impressive.
Also, some of these proposed “bargains” I keep reading about are very strange to me — and I was a big Gang of 14 guy back in like ‘05. I like to find off-ramps and seriously consider reasonable compromises. I’ve been called a squish etc…
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) September 22, 2020
Recommended
He’s being very fair here.
But “if you don’t fill a SCOTUS seat in a fully authorized & heavily precedented manner, we won’t…blow up multiple longstanding institutions with radical power grabs” isn’t a “deal.” It’s extortion…
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) September 22, 2020
DING DING DING.
If Trump said, “if you let me replace RBG without a big fight, I’ll agree to totally respect the election results & not urge my supporters to take to the streets if I lose,” how would Democrats react to that proposed “compromise”?
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) September 22, 2020
They’d be screaming about Putin and calling Trump LITERALLY HITLER and a total authoritarian.
It’s all so damn tiresome.
Finally, this moment cannot be accurately analyzed without the crucial context of decades of bare-knuckled Democratic escalations. De-escalation must start with the aggressors, who are now — surprise! — flirting with new, wild-eyed escalations: https://t.co/K8weeimA4z
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) September 22, 2020
A point regarding norms. Last time a president and his party accomplished what GOP proposes was 80 years ago in 1940.
Last time we added Senate seats was more recent, the admission of Hawaii in 1959.
Adding SCOTUS/Senate seats is also a clear constitutional prerogative.
— David French (@DavidAFrench) September 22, 2020
Not exactly the norms Guy seems all that concerned about.
He responded.
If the GOP had threatened to kill the filibuster & add East and West Dakota (and four new R Senators) — using explicitly partisan/retaliatory arguments — in 2017, would that have been equivalent to a Dem Senate confirming Garland? I don’t think these things are even close.
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) September 22, 2020
Not even.
Same on all that. David's a good friend. Disagree strongly with this argument.
— Casey Mattox (@CaseyMattox_) September 22, 2020
Because he’s wrong.
***
Related:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member