The only thing that's changed is which party is "the opposition".Democrats are repulsed by the notion of refusing to perform the jobs they were elected to carry out just to metagame the system in their own favor or out of spite.Republicans have no such qualms, nor ever had.
That's not entirely true. The first Supreme Court appointee rejected on ideological ground, at least in the post-World War II era, was Robert Bork, voted down by Democrats. And 22 Democrats voted against John Roberts. I agree that refusing even to hold hearings would be a new and radical step, but the politicization of court confirmations has been intensifying for decades.
Actually it is entirely true. In both the cases you mention, the Democrats still voted - which is the entire point of their being elected to the positions they hold.If your job is to cast votes on behalf of your constituency, and you refuse to vote, shouldn't that be grounds for the termination of your employment?If a police officer refuses to perform their duties, they get fired. If a government clerk refuses to perform their duties, they get fired. So why is it when members of congress refuse to perform their duties, there are zero consequences?
Post a Comment