Even if it is, it could set a precedent that makes it easier for a future, less corrupt administration.
I don't know if the good necessarily outweighs the bad, but maybe it does.
I don't know if the good necessarily outweighs the bad, but maybe it does.
This is a continuation of politics trying to skim money off of tech and funnel it to thier favored constituents - it's straight up corruption.
This doesn't mean its corruption. You need more qualification to call it that.
(Not saying that the Trump admin isn't corrupt. I'm rather saying that your statement is too broad, and it fits almost all generally accepted democratic governance.)
Precedent is tricky. Democrats removing the filibuster for judges came back to haunt them.
There was a recent (last few weeks) SCOTUS decision that came out with numerous opinions by different coalitions. You could tell that they were all maneuvering around this idea of precedent.
Liberal justices who ended up on either side (majority or minority) were couching their votes as upholding a prior precedent, even when they definitely weren't.
Conservative justices ended up on either side of the case while subtly arguing that overturning precedent, or at least modifying it, was okay and normal.
Both are presumed to be setting up for the next challenge to Roe vs. Wade.
EDIT: mistakenly put that the democrats removed filibuster for SCOTUS judges, that was for other nominations
Who knew that first-mover advantage existed in politics? Or perhaps this is better seen as a example of mutually assured destruction playing out in real life?
Did it though? Legal precedent is different (for now) from political precedent, and I think the Republicans have proven they’re happy to steamroll through almost anything they can to seat a Justice. They would have instantly dropped the filibuster if it hadn’t already been done.
My point was just that pragmatically, I don’t think it bit them in the ass.
Just why? What’s the history here?
The courts, and in particular the supreme court, have increasingly been weaponized as ways to both advance agendas and preserve inviolable causes of both parties. Since the justices are appointed by political processes, that appointment has also become increasingly political, to the point that people justify voting for a presidential candidate they dislike because of the supreme court vacancies the candidate will presumably be able to fill.
The libertarian answer would be to reduce the power and discretion of government officials so it won't be such a high-stakes, partisan process.