I copypasted it from The Atlantic.
Got it. That explains the mediocrity.
This is bothsiderism, right? 
When pseudo-intellectuals use the phrase or one of its derivatives, they really mean that Democrats are morally good and intellectually honest, and that when Dems engage in a specific action or use a specific argument, it is wholesome and right. When dastardly Republicans do it, it is vile and wrong and dishonest. You will see said pseudo-intellectuals attempt to use logicians' phrases like "false equivalence" or "moral equivalence", or whatnot.
Now, in the comparison I raised, Amy Coney Barrett is very clearly a bad person, bordering on Hitlerian evil. She does not agree with Roe, for instance. That necessarily, automatically, and permanently renders her entirely unsuitable to sit on SCOTUS. Therefore, given her Hitlerian evil, Democrats are taking the bold step of boycotting the Judiciary Committee vote. It is an ineffectual, impotent gesture.
Oregon state Republicans, on the other hand, opposed righteous and good and wholesome legislation regarding an emissions cap and trade scheme* presented by the near super-majority Democrats. That prevented a quorum, which killed the bill. Republicans were effective. Actually, you see, that points out the difference: Democrats are incompetent and flail helplessly while Republicans, even when in minority status, thwart Dems. Republicans are bad because they succeed.
* State level cap and trade legislation is hokum on many levels. Every economist, of every political persuasion, will tell you that a carbon tax is far more efficient and effective at dealing with emissions. Telling people you want to impose a massive new tax is political poison, though, so hokum prevails.
