If you say that packing the court is immoral and simultaneously support packing the court as means of revenge, you're a hypocrite by definition, you're just open about it. You would condemn anyone doing it, but you want your team to do it because you've manufactured a justification for yourself. You know it's wrong, but you want it done because you feel slighted.
You're confusing a desire for fairness with "revenge." It's not revenge. If Republicans are going to hypocritically take Supreme Court seats that don't belong to them, Democrats should do the same to even the playing field. Respectfully, "not rolling over and taking it" is not a difficult concept to grasp. What McConnell is doing also arguably justifies the court packing.
Obama's nominees couldn't get confirmed because the Republicans were filibustering them for no reason other than "we don't want Democrats to appoint judges, despite having a Democratic president and Senate." As I already said, the non-talking filibuster is stupid.
That's the nature of justification. If my neighbour shoots my dog, I don't get to shoot his wife. It's either moral or immoral - you don't get to pick and choose what's right or wrong depending on how you feel that day. If you want to do something you would normally consider immoral because of the actions of a third party, that's the definition of revenge.
It's about retribution, not revenge.
That's not what happened. See the 2016 comments by McConnell, Graham, etc. It was because they arbitrarily made up a standard where nominations don't get taken up in an election year. They can't change their mind now without being hypocritical.
I don't care what the Democrats do, I was simply pointing out an inconsistency in your position. Quick clarification - it would be Democrats using weasly, hypocritical tactics to stack the court in their favour because Republicans used weasly, hypocritical tactics to stack it in theirs. Don't put them on a pedestal of moral superiority when they have none, it would be equivalent exchange - you yourself considered both moves immoral a few pages back. Either it's tit for tat or it's not. I won't grill you on it though, it just puts a smile on my face.
I haven't said anything inconsistent.
I'm perfectly good at recanting. I just don't have to do it very often.I guess neither one of us is good at recanting. I can respect that.
I'm trying to find the part of your post that's relevant. I don't think anybody is arguing supreme court justices should only be replaced under the guidelines in their deathbed wishes.
Oh, I know you have a justification. I also know you consider the method of retaliation, or as you call it, retribution, to be immoral. Like I said, play to win - I wouldn't expect anything less. I just prefer to be a villain openly - it's much more fun this way, IMO.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn't getting replaced. She's dead. There is an empty seat that needs to be filled.
As justified retribution, I don't consider court packing immoral.Oh, I know you have a justification. I also know you consider the method of retaliation, or as you call it, retribution, to be immoral. Like I said, play to win - I wouldn't expect anything less. I just prefer to be a villain openly - it's much more fun this way, IMO.
So I guess you were in favor of the Senate taking up Obama's nomination in 2016? Scalia was dead. There was an empty seat that needed to be filled.
Well, that's not quite right, is it? Murder is the act of an unlawful and premeditated killing, killing someone in self-defense is lawful and not premeditated. Now, it would be different if, say, someone murdered your son, so you murded theirs in kind. Both actions would be immoral, regardless of who started the feud. Remember, we're talking about an exchange of equivalent weasly actions. But that's enough semantic arguments for one night.
I was using an example of when an action can be unjustified vs. when an action can be justified. Hypocritically changing the rules back and for with regard to when the Senate takes up a court nomination is unjustified. Court packing in response to an unjustified taking of a court seat is an act of retribution and is justified.Well, that's not quite right, is it? Murder is the act of an unlawful and premeditated killing, killing someone in self-defense is lawful and not premeditated. Now, it would be different if, say, someone murdered your son, so you murded theirs in kind. Both actions would be immoral, regardless of who started the feud. Remember, we're talking about an exchange of equivalent weasly actions. But that's enough semantic arguments for one night.
That's a lot of provisos, especially if the party awarding the justified retribution and the injured party is one and the same. Don't worry, I know what you mean, I'm just pulling your leg.
I admit there's a problem with the injured party being the judge/jury, but I'm still arguing court packing would be justified.
@
Psionic Roshambo:
@
Psionic Roshambo:
like a 250 dollar kit back when DDR4 was Intel only
