Pseudo-Logic

As I trundle around the liberal blogs, reading their thoughts on the John Roberts nomination, I see a couple themes developing, largely among commenters:

If the Dems filibuster Roberts, they might lose the filibuster to the nuclear option, and then get a worse nominee next time.

If the Dems don't lose the filibuster and shoot Roberts down, then a future Democratic President would have his hands tied by the precedent of a Roberts defeat.

Yeah, because the Republicans have taken the high road with their judicial nominations so far, and they were oh-so-scrupulous about giving Democratic nominees the much-vaunted up-or-down vote when there was a Democrat in the White House.

Let us be perfectly clear, now and forever more:

Any argument which takes the form of the conditional "if we do X, then the Republicans will do X later" is fatally flawed:  there is no causation or even correllation to which it applies.

The Republicans will always do X. The Republicans will also do Y, Z, and with apologies to Theodore Geisel, the Republicans will also do all of the awful things represented by all of the letters beyond the end of the alphabet, regardless of whether or not the Democrats do X.  Because that's what Republicans do.  Maybe once upon a time that wasn't what Republicans did, and maybe some time in the far far future in a galaxy far far away when there has been a complete reversal of course by the Republican Party and all of the current Republican leaders and College Republicans and Young Republicans have passed on to their just deserts, the Republicans won't do X. 

But that possibility is just a Big Rock Candy Mountain for the foreseeable future.

N.B.  Billmon's pieces on the Liberal Disease of "fairness" should also be required reading in this vein:  here, here, and here.

Comments

[Stygius]

If the Democrats filibuster Roberts without any public support, they will lose credibility such that Bush will be justified in nominating a divisive ideologue to the Court next year when Rehnquist steps down.

In one respect, the judicial filibuster deal has worked, since Bush has been forced to nominate an evident milquetoast. In another respect, the White House has out-maneuvered Democrats and liberal groups by nominating someone who is broadly acceptable to the public and wouldn't by any measure fall under the obviously objectionable standard of the filibuster deal, and makes kee-jerk opposition look rabid and unreasonable for the next time around. Thus, the deal would be perceived as violated, and politically the ground would be set for not only doing away with it next year, but doing so with arguable justification in an election year.

The Democrats aren't going to mount a filibuster, based on political reality. There's no sense attacking and undermining them because of this. Pick your battles.

[paperwight]

Stygius, you generally say thoughtful things. But you need to read what I wrote more carefully. I did not say "the Dems must filibuster". I said, don't do anything because you think it will empower the Republicans to do something bad later -- they'll do it no matter what you do. This is pretty much why I didn't think the filibuster deal was a good one. Seems to me that a weapon that the other side can be *sure* you'll never use turns into a hollow threat. If it's stupid politically for the Dems to beat the hell out of Roberts, that's one thing. Doing it because you think it will empower the Republicans, that's another, stupider, thing.

And while I hear a lot of people make the "you'll look bad" argument, I have yet to see the Democrats in power actually take a united stand on anything except in those limited circumstances where their particular privileges are attacked. So the "you'll look bad" argument is purely hypothetical. Also, recent polling suggests that people (even the deified "independents") *want* the Democrats to push back on Bush. Most Americans don't pay much attention to the Supreme Court anyway -- recent evidence suggests that the "independents" don't pay attention to much of anything political, which is why they're "independents". If you go out to the "independents" ask them about the filibuster compromise, how many of them do you think will even know about it?

Last, I don't think Bush has nominated a milquetoast. I suspect he's nominated a hard-liner in the general frame of Scalia and Thomas who has had the sense to stay out of the public eye. If he does the same thing when Rehnquist retires, what are you going to do then? Advise caution, again? Remember, the chances are that Bush will nominate one of the sitting Justices for CJ, and pick someone new for the regular justice spot. Why should he rock the boat with an out-of-the-closet extremist for that justice position?

[Abby]

I agree with your basic point about refraining from making arguments that we can't do X, because then the Republicans will do Y.

Thanks for linking to Billmon. I hadn't read his first piece. I basically think that we ought to emulate Michael Corleone (as articulated in post 3), but figuring out how to do that is hard.

On the specific issue of Roberts I haven't made up my own mind yet. I can't tell whether he's Scalia/Thomas or more like Rehnquist. Frankly, I prefer Scalia to Thomas. Roberts' views of presidential power in war time are Yoo-esque and damn frightening.

I'm not sure whether the Dems should mount a fillibuster, but I'm inclined to urge my Senators to vote against him if we get to the much-desired up-or-down vote.

[Mr. Natural]

I am a veteran and a liberal and near as I can tell the Democrats are not going to do a goddamned THING about anything.

[ryan]

tired of castrated Dems. Excuses, excuses, whining... Republicans play to win and dems - I swear they're playing to lose. At best, they're playing for the status quo, which a) is a sucky status quo and b) if you don't aim high, you'll fall short.

[eRobin]

The National Association of Manufacturers wants Roberts in. That's the end of the story. He's in. The Dems are limited by the leash of corporate money. We all give about a million times more thought to how the Dems could win than the Dems do. They spend nearly all of their time trying to figure out how to keep the gravy train rolling while appearing to remember who their base used to be. Howard Dean excepted.

In fact, Dean is one of the curtains they hide behind - finding him useful only after they were convinced that they had to crush him and then - as usual - failed to acheive their goal.

[Professor von Nostrand]

I cannot help but think that abandonment of fair fighting is the same sort of abandonment of principle that gave us the DLC. Are things really that bad that we need to compete with the best at being a-holes?

[paperwight]

Professor, where did I say "abandon fair fighting"? And for that matter, what is "fair" in the current political situation? I think I've been clear in the past that flat-out lies are destructive to the process, and also wrong. But short of that, there are many many things that one can do, almost none of which "centrists" and even most of the Democratic leadership are willing to contemplate, for fear that they might look "mean" or "obstructionist".

That's hardly proven to be a handicap for the Republicans. In fact, "wimpy" is far worse than "mean" in American politics. And wimpy is what the DLC et al are giving us, combined with "lie about everyone not on board with the DLC inside-the-beltway agenda".

[G. D. Frogsdong]

I somehow find it repugnant that some folks are urging people not to fight because, if they do, the other side might put up a fight.

Fight, goddamit! Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.