Maddow On The Building Democratic Backlash To McConnell Coopting Courts - Rachel Maddow - MSNBC

[Rhiannon12866]

Rachel Maddow shares her assessment of mood and energy of Democrats who want to counter the distortions Mitch McConnell has brought to the federal court system under Donald Trump. Aired on 10/26/2020.




Trump Appointee Cites 'Matter Of Conscience' In Resigning Over Trump Federal Worker Order

Rachel Maddow reports on the resignation of Donald Trump appointee Ronald Sanders over changes Donald Trump is making to remove protections and politicize the federal workforce. Unlike others who left the Trump administration without comment, Dr. Sanders has made his protest clear. Aired on 10/26/2020.

[Hekate]

1. KnR

[Tiger8]

2. Republicans violated Racketeering laws to pack the courts

The Federalist Society was the link that enabled criminals, and groups planning to commit crimes, to pick the judges who would either decriminalize their acts, or at the very least, lower the penalty so much as to still make the crime pay.

It is pay for play.

[FrankTC]

3. Tit For Tat

Game theory says that the best strategy in situations like this is tit for tat, or, as Maddow says, fighting fire with fire. In other words, if your opponent makes a collaborative move that results in gains for both sides, respond next time by making a move that is similarly collaborative. If your opponent makes a hostile move that results in one-sided gains, respond next time by making a move that is similarly one-sided. Tit for tat. You lose the game by responding with even-handed generosity to your opponent's hostile move (perhaps in an attempt to promote future collaboration). I'm not a game theorist, so in reality the theory is probably more complex. But from what I've read, tit for tat is in most situations the winning strategy. If Democrats don't respond to extremism with extremism, Republicans will have learned that they can do anything they want and suffer no consequences. Maybe they feel that extremism is justified by the Bork rejection -- a questionable conclusion, but even if true, it would only justify the rejection of a single leftist nominee, not the subversion of the entire nomination process. And I don't recall that Merrick Garland was considered a leftist. Certainly the Bork rejection cannot justify blockading the nominees of a Democratic president, then fastwalking the nominees of the subsequent Republican. Nor can it justify making up rules about nominations that occur during Presidential election years and then breaking your own rule at the time of the next Presidential election. I hope Senator Schumer has studied game theory.