The "we shouldn't do 'x' because then the Republicans would do 'y' " argument.

[Yavin4]

This is a faulty argument since the Republicans are comitted to grabbing and consolidating power no matter if we do "x" or not. This argument presupposes that the Republicans will recact with even worse measures in response to something that we do.

From the Bush v. Gore decision in 2000 to voter suppression to denying Obama a vote on his SCOTUS nominee to collaborating with the Russians to not calling witnesses in Trump's impeachment hearing to now rushing through a replacement for RBG, tell me what constraints have you seen the Republicans exercise because of their fear of what we might do in response.

[DonaldsRump]

1. None.

[dalton99a]

2. The Supreme Court officially became a political institution with Bush v. Gore

Now they are practically an auxiliary of the Republican Party

[Blaukraut]

3. Republicans have been doing 'y' without us doing 'x' for over a decade already

It's time the Dems finally get to doing 'x', and for good measure, throw in 'z'.

[Mike 03]

4. Zero constraints.

You're right.

In Game Theory, if your opponent never cooperates, you are supposed to punish them, not hope that they might do the right thing eventually.

[Martin Eden]

5. I agree. Making concessions in fear of what the other side might do is a losing game.

We have to go on the offensive and stay there, keeping them off balance.

Let THEM look weak when they howl and cry no fair.

Strength commands respect.

[Statistical]

6. Exactly. If Democrats have a chance to gain power and use it for good they should. Period.

If that means removing the cloture vote, expanding the Supreme Court, opening DC & PR to statehood, expanding the size of the House SO BE IT.

Whatever option is available to them they need to take to shift the country away from fascism. The future is unknown the right and now is known. That is why the Republicans have been so successful at consolidating and keeping power. Fight for the here and now and there might be a future. Don't and there is no future to protect.

[gulliver]

7. That logic doesn't justify us doing just any old thing, of course.

If we do x, for bad enough x, the number of Republicans can grow and, in turn, do more y.

[JHB]

8. Even farther back than that

Exhibit 1: the "say whatever will cajole Democrats into voting for our SC picks, and if they resist throw tantrums to get them to back down" strategy.

The reason Thomas was put on the SC was...

...NOT because he was the most qualified jurist. He wasn't.
...NOT because he was the most qualified black jurist. He wasn't.
...NOT because he was the most qualified black conservative jurist. He wasn't.

He was the most qualified black conservative with reliable but obfuscatable views from a conservative standpoint (no going off the reservation on civil rights issues, fer'instance), and was young enough that he'd stay on the court for decades.