Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Point was, the filibusters represent a huge extension of the historical process edging severely into incivility - just as does the TX redistricting. Yes, both are legal (as set out just now with the FedCrt.) But you're telling me you have a problem with the TX process? Wordplay. I stand by my assertion.
|
A principled discussion about the processes involved in judicial appointments would have to take account of the various ways the members of the Senate, including members of the minority, could block or have a say in judicial appointments, a process that has been changed in recent years by Republicans. It is no secret that the GOP has been on a campaign to remake the judiciary in a Federalist image. If you ask a question about filibusters, while ignoring the rest of this, you are stacking the deck. If the question is, would I prefer the way judicial nominations were traditionally handled to where we are now, the answer is, absolutely. Just as I feel about the TX redistricting.
That's how a principled discussion would unfold. You, clearly, are not interested in these principles, but only in the reductionist "you only like the results you like" argument. You are, at the least, consistent.
