I think "clear win" will get some pushback. I understand where you are coming from there. You spell out what you mean. Still, that term has a certain cachet that bothers people.
I think it is a "tool" in various ways. One thing for me is that it's there. Durbin kept on saying "Roberts has to do something." Well, here it is. It's pathetic …
I think "clear win" will get some pushback. I understand where you are coming from there. You spell out what you mean. Still, that term has a certain cachet that bothers people.
I think it is a "tool" in various ways. One thing for me is that it's there. Durbin kept on saying "Roberts has to do something." Well, here it is. It's pathetic in a range of ways. That's good. Hanging out hope can be dangerous. We see what the "best they can do" means.
It's not meaningless but people have a right to wonder what exactly changed. The code in fact helps them in some ways. Now, clearly, certain rules applied to federal judges regularly were watered down. They argued they basically was guided by those rules. Now, this set of rules gives them more rope. Their allies can point to language doing so.
I think "clear win" will get some pushback. I understand where you are coming from there. You spell out what you mean. Still, that term has a certain cachet that bothers people.
I think it is a "tool" in various ways. One thing for me is that it's there. Durbin kept on saying "Roberts has to do something." Well, here it is. It's pathetic in a range of ways. That's good. Hanging out hope can be dangerous. We see what the "best they can do" means.
It's not meaningless but people have a right to wonder what exactly changed. The code in fact helps them in some ways. Now, clearly, certain rules applied to federal judges regularly were watered down. They argued they basically was guided by those rules. Now, this set of rules gives them more rope. Their allies can point to language doing so.