Ed Gillespie questions what happens if the Republicans defer to the President's judicial nominees1, despite past (and anticipated future) Democratic opposition of nominees on ideological grounds. Leaving aside the fact that this notion of Republican deference is a myth, it's interesting that my proposed answer apparently never occurred to Gillespie.
______
1. Gillespie actually refers only to the Supreme Court, apparently being of the mind that the various ideological litmus tests and hurdles the Republicans placed before Clinton's nominees for lower courts were duly deferential.
What a funny comment on Ed's part. There are fundamental differences between the major political parties. And differences of beliefs in the individual parties. It is a rare occasion when everyone agrees.
ReplyDeleteHe's laying the ground work for part of a planned Republican attack campaign against whomever Obama nominates. But fundamentally, this approach reminds me of a toddler's tantrum, "Look what you made me do."
ReplyDeleteIf you won't take responsibility for your own choices and actions, you're not principled.