Plenty of precedent for GOP to hold up on Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee

Democrats started the whole thing by the their shameless behavior in the Robert Bork hearings in 1987 and have been proceeding apace with holding up Republican nominees ever since.

Steven Hayward explains that their is pleanty of precedent and justification for the GOP in this:

Lately I’ve been arguing with lefty acquaintances of mine who say, “Isn’t it terrible for the Republicans to play tit-for-tat over Court nominations” that surely they don’t seriously expect Republicans never to reciprocate for the shameful treatment of Republican judicial nominees, starting with Bork. Over 50 Bush judicial nominees were never given a hearing, let alone a vote—and not just in the final year in office. Democrats blocked a hearing for Miguel Estrada for several years (because a conservative Hispanic terrified Democratic Party racial uniformity enforcers). And let’s not forget Obama’s willingness to filibuster each of George W. Bush’s two Supreme Court nominees. Obama has no standing to complain about the treatment of Judge Garland.

Moreover, if you consult the basic literature of game theory, you’ll see that “tit-for-tat” is exactly how you should respond to a second party who is trying to gain advantage over you: only through a taste of their own medicine will the first party moderate its behavior.

Indeed.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Archives

%d bloggers like this: