They may not be in the majority, but they won their seats in their own elections which gives them their own power. This era is defined by realpolitik and might-makes-right use of official power. Democrats wielding their (again, legitimate) power to extract maximum leverage to thwart the agenda of the opposing party is exactly how Mitch McConnell played politics. If you're upset about this and claim it's thwarting democracy, then we can have a conversation about replacing Gorsuch with Garland.
Oh I am not upset about it, as I said elsewhere that it was their prerogative to do it which is why the dems own it. I think it’s a bad/stupid strategy, because for a shutdown to be a threat, the other side needs to not want it at all. Russell Vought is salivating over this to cut jobs, Schumer knows this (which is why he caved in March).
This was a political Pascal’s wager for Trump, win or break even. For the dems there isn’t even a neutral result to forcing the shutdown—it’s just all bad.
McConnell played the ace that Harry Reid passed him. Unconventional and breaking with tradition, of course, but ultimately “advice and consent” meant exactly that. The senate withheld consent for Merrick Garland. There is no doubt that given the opportunity again one day, the dems will do the same thing. Hell, it was their idea.
> for a shutdown to be a threat, the other side needs to not want it at all.
Depends on who the other side is. Russell Vought doesn't need to answer to voters next Fall. On the other hand, the Republican representative who won a major-thin margin in my district, ousting a Democrat who delivered for their constituents, would very much like something to point at other than a shutdown for their reelection campaign.
