Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir
I find that incredibly implausible. McConnell did not need Democrats to eliminate the filibuster in 2013. He had a majority in the Senate in 2017, and he could've eliminated it without Democrats' consent. Democrats didn't "allow" Trump to stuff the courts with nutjobs, as if they would've been required to keep the filibuster if not for Harry Reid's actions in 2013. McConnell could have, and would have, eliminated it for Trump.
So if Democrats hadn't nuked it in 2013, the result would've been that McConnell nukes the filibuster in 2017 instead, and all those vacancies filled by Obama after nuking the filibuster would've been filled by Trump.
If your argument relies on Mitch McConnell's respect for norms and the opposition party, your argument has a fatal flaw.
|
I understand. It is possible that McConnell may not have had the votes to upset the norm in 2017 and remove the filibuster, but that strikes me as foolish hope on my part, considering the GOP and McConnell's disrespect for precedent and decorum.
I still think that it has a net advantage to the Republicans, but I'm not sure I would do anything differently. It just sucks that it's a net advantage.