You break it, you buy it

With Trump's nomination of Neil Gorsuch to fill Antonin Scalia's Garland Merrick's Supreme Court seat, lots of questions are coming out.

Yes, some of them are on his academic credentials (quite good, imo), and his political views (not as good, imo). 

But there are also the questions about how Democrats should react to this nomination. Should they filibuster the way Republicans did Obama's nominees? Should they take the high road and move forward? Should they use the same logic Republicans did? Trump has already taken the first step to file as a candidate for the 2020 election, so, technically, we are in the midst of an election cycle....

I will admit to being conflicted. I hated what the Republicans did, not just with the nomination of Garland Merrick, but with other Obama nominees, with the Affordable Care Act, with the shutdown(s), threatened or real, of our government. These were not the sort of actions that I think are viable in a democracy. I don't want to see my party stoop to that level. 

However, I am human, and there are times when I feel vindictive. My president was not allowed to fill a seat that he should have been able to. Why should "their" president get to? Whether you think of it as "do unto others as they've done unto you," "turn about is fair play," or "an eye for an eye," these notions and emotions are, in fact, human.

Further, I worry about the political slant the court will take. I've gone over these before, but to sum up, I am pro-choice, and support LGBTQ rights, am opposed to Citizens United, I support funding for the arts and a single payer health system. I am, in short, a liberal and a progressive. Gorsuch will set many of the rulings I care most about back decades.

But, as a good friend said, social issues will ebb and flow, and humanity does move forward. Most Americans support gay marriage. By a very small margin, to be sure, but they do. Most Americans support keeping abortion legal. Even if a more conservative court rolls back some of these rulings, I don't believe that they will stay rolled back.

But there is, to me, a larger issue.

The main "rational" I've heard out of the Republicans for why Democrats should not try to block Gorsuch's nomination is, essentially, "you said it was wrong when we did it to you, so you can't do it to us!"

Really? Are we six? 

Just imagine this scenario. You've got two kids. Suddenly you hear a shriek from the playroom, and you run in. One child is crying - you ask what's wrong, and he says that his sister punched him. You look at Child 2 and say "Is that true? Child 2 admits that she punched her brother, but says he punched HER first. You look back at Child 1 and say, "Is that true?" Child 1 says, "Well, yes, I did punch her first, but she didn't like it, so she shouldn't have punched me." At this point, after screaming, you'd probably tell both kids to quit punching each other, but (if you're like me), you'd also tell Child 1 to stop being a little brat. Possibly with nicer words, but still.

Here's the problem with the Republican notion. They know that what they did was wrong. They do not, in fact, want the Democrats to do it to them.

But they're damned if they're going to admit it.

They would have gone a long way towards reconciliation if they had confirmed Merrick. They have another chance, now.  Here's how it could go: 

Senator McConnell: "You know, guys, we screwed up the past year. We let our fears of Hillary Clinton get in the way of our democracy. We should've at least held hearings on Garland Merrick. We were wrong, Democrats; we were unfair and undemocratic. We sincerely hope that you will take the high road, and not continue this downward spiral."

Senator Schumer: "Mitch, thank you for that apology. You're right, this has been a difficult year. I can't promise that we can be best buddies immediately, but I appreciate your honesty, and hopefully we can move forward together."

Rep. Ryan: "Wow, Mitch, that didn't sound that hard. Maybe I'll try it!"

Rep. Pelosi: "Hey, Paul, let's go for drinks after work, and we can work on it together! I'll buy the first round of jello shots!"

Yeah, OK, so I got a little crazy there.

But my point is, if Republicans now want to say that filibustering, blocking, stalling, etc are wrong, and evidence of a broken system...well, they're going to have to take ownership of breaking it. Doesn't meant that I expect them to fix it over night, but if they want to have the luxury of being the bull in the china shop without the responsibility of helping to pay for the ensuing destruction, sorry, I'm not going to work with, get behind, come together, or reconcile with that.

Because unifying and reconciling requires work on both party's part. In a marriage, if there's a breach of trust, whether through gambling, adultery, or whatever, you don't just get to ask for forgiveness without making changes. Admitting the behavior, acknowledging the damage it caused, and pledging to move forward. And, yes, the aggrieved partner also has to work - they need to do the work of forgiveness, of relinquishing some control, etc. But if one party says, simply, "OK, my behavior is in the past, just forgive me and we'll move on," likely the relationship won't survive.

And this is not a marriage. This is not a friendship.

This is our country.

So, please, Republicans, consider accepting your responsibilities. Please consider not just telling Democrats that they can't now do what they complained about you doing. Please consider taking the next step, and say that Democrats shouldn't do what you did, because it's wrong. It was wrong when you did it, and it would be wrong now.

And then after you talk the talk, please walk the walk.

And then, we might all have a chance.