Ginsburg has passed!!

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, that seems to be that. The GOP is falling in line, desperate to etch an ultra-conservative majority that is in danger of making CJ Roberts look like a moderate, and willing to end any democratic trust in the system.

Oddly enough, I think this dooms Collins because now her choice doesn't even matter.

It does seem funny... the party that doesn't want to "legislate" from the bench... stuffing the bench.

 

[bilby]

Lefties: Trump is bad for harming democratic norms.

Also Lefties: We will be violent and destroy if we don’t get what we want! that is the only remaining option to preserve democratic norms

FTFY.

Violence and destruction are not morally wrong under every circumstance; The D-Day landings were extremely violent and destructive, but few people believe them to be immoral, because they were carried out in an attempt to restore democratic norms.

There's no hypocrisy in defending democratic norms with violence if that is the only available means to do so, despite your implied gut feeling that violence and democratic norms ought to be incompatible. That's not an indication of hypocrisy amongst your political opponents; It's just an indication that your gut feelings are shit.

To paraphrase Dr Zoidberg*: Your dichotomy is false, your arguments are hyper-simplistic, and you should feel bad.











*The one on Futurama, not the forum member on TFT with that handle.

Well, in this case the Republicans would be following the norms, i.e., the Senate gets to confirm the nomination to the Supreme court supplied by the President.

Ha ha. No.

It's not a democratic norm to ignore precedent unless it is expedient to uphold it.

If law were as simple as you seem to imagine it to be, you wouldn't need judges or a supreme court at all.

 

[bilby]

Well, that seems to be that. The GOP is falling in line, desperate to etch an ultra-conservative majority that is in danger of making CJ Roberts look like a moderate, and willing to end any democratic trust in the system.

Oddly enough, I think this dooms Collins because now her choice doesn't even matter.

It does seem funny... the party that doesn't want to "legislate" from the bench... stuffing the bench.

To the unprincipled, principles are just another stick with which to bash ones opponents. They don't apply to your own actions.

As I have said elsewhere:

They are completely unconcerned about being thought hypocritical, or about breaking with tradition or precedent, or about being exposed as cheats, or even about being thought of as evil.

Power is the goal, and they will literally stop at nothing to obtain it.

The fundamental flaw in the western political model is that it depends on people being basically moral and decent. It assumes that, if a person is caught cheating, or breaking the unwritten rules, that they will have the decency to resign. And it further assumes that if they don't have the decency to resign, that the electorate will soundly punish them for their transgression by voting them out in a landslide.

But hyper-partisanship breaks the latter safeguard; and a complete lack of shame destroys the former.

As George Orwell observed, "Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship".

The neo-fascist elements of the GOP (and of the UK Conservative Party) have successfully created an environment in which enough voters are tribally bound to their colours that they will forgive anything rather than vote for the other team; And only their personal decency and honour remains as an obstacle to their total power.

 

[Emily Lake]

If someone is drowning and you don't make any effort to help, you are to blame for their death. It's irrelevant whether you pushed them in, or merely stood by and watched rather than getting involved. And it's irrelevant that you did something that didn't help, just so you could claim that you didn't do nothing.

There are starving children on the other side of the planet. What are you doing for them?

I'm pretty certain bilby meant if you were near a person that was drowning. He didn't explicitly state this, but that was probably because he figured people were familiar enough with both the hypothetical and the English language that he didn't need to long hand the hypothetical.

I find the position that lack of action is the same as action to be a flawed position, and is almost always a principle that is selectively applied and cherry picked. It's sole use seems to be to assume a moral authority over another person and shame them into capitulating rather than actually engaging their viewpoint.

 

[James Brown]

The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not an opposing party's nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own.

How often has that happened? There was Merrick Garland in 2016, obviously. The last "election year nomination" that I know of was in 1968, and that was for Abe Fortas, who was already on the court, to become Chief Justice.

 

[Patooka]

The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not an opposing party's nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own.

How often has that happened? There was Merrick Garland in 2016, obviously. The last "election year nomination" that I know of was in 1968, and that was for Abe Fortas, who was already on the court, to become Chief Justice.

The argument could be made that 2018 was another example due to the mid terms. Republicans didn't specify what type of election year in 2016 and you can be damn sure McConnell and Co. would have tried the same bullshit if Clinton was president at the time. "Hillary Clinton should not decide who gets to be on the Supreme Court until the American people decide who should be in Government after November 2018". You fucking know that would have happened.

 

[Emily Lake]

Violence and destruction are not morally wrong under every circumstance; The D-Day landings were extremely violent and destructive, but few people believe them to be immoral, because they were carried out in an attempt to restore democratic norms.

I'm not sure your "because" is accurate here. The Vietnam war was also an attempt to restore democratic norms, but that is frequently viewed to have been a bad deal and something the US shouldn't have done.

I think the "because" in the case of D-Day had more to do with defense against an aggressor than with democracy.

 

[Emily Lake]

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't selectively praise identity politics. So, it's quite easy for me to identify Trump selecting a woman and saying so specifically as a virtue-signalling stunt.

Maybe... but I give it good odds that it's also a politically savvy move. One of the greatest fears with Ginsburg's death have focused around women's rights, especially with respect to abortion. Committing to selecting a woman to fill that spot could go a fair way toward quelling that fear.

Biden's commitment to select a woman of color was pretty much the same thing - addressing the concerns of a portion of the population that feel they are at risk when the country is run so heavily by old white men.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm pretty certain bilby meant if you were near a person that was drowning. He didn't explicitly state this, but that was probably because he figured people were familiar enough with both the hypothetical and the English language that he didn't need to long hand the hypothetical.

I find the position that lack of action is the same as action to be a flawed position, and is almost always a principle that is selectively applied and cherry picked. It's sole use seems to be to assume a moral authority over another person and shame them into capitulating rather than actually engaging their viewpoint.

That's a lot of words for saying "I'd let them drown."

 

[Patooka]

I think the "because" in the case of D-Day had more to do with defense against an aggressor than with democracy.

Umm...I read the news today oh boy...

 

[bilby]

I'm pretty certain bilby meant if you were near a person that was drowning. He didn't explicitly state this, but that was probably because he figured people were familiar enough with both the hypothetical and the English language that he didn't need to long hand the hypothetical.

I find the position that lack of action is the same as action to be a flawed position, and is almost always a principle that is selectively applied and cherry picked. It's sole use seems to be to assume a moral authority over another person and shame them into capitulating rather than actually engaging their viewpoint.

Welcome to human civilisation, which is founded on that approach.

Law is a framework, not a complete statement of moral obligation. It's not illegal to stand by and watch someone drown without doing a thing to help. Nor should it be. But that doesn't mean that it's acceptable.

Moral authority is entirely based on shaming people into doing the right thing. That's why shameless liars and hypocrites in positions of power are so corrosive to civilisation.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm pretty certain bilby meant if you were near a person that was drowning. He didn't explicitly state this, but that was probably because he figured people were familiar enough with both the hypothetical and the English language that he didn't need to long hand the hypothetical.

I find the position that lack of action is the same as action to be a flawed position, and is almost always a principle that is selectively applied and cherry picked. It's sole use seems to be to assume a moral authority over another person and shame them into capitulating rather than actually engaging their viewpoint.

That's a lot of words for saying "I'd let them drown."

Ahh Jimmy, I see your mind reading skills haven't improved over the years.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think the "because" in the case of D-Day had more to do with defense against an aggressor than with democracy.

Umm...I read the news today oh boy...

I don't understand this.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm pretty certain bilby meant if you were near a person that was drowning. He didn't explicitly state this, but that was probably because he figured people were familiar enough with both the hypothetical and the English language that he didn't need to long hand the hypothetical.

I find the position that lack of action is the same as action to be a flawed position, and is almost always a principle that is selectively applied and cherry picked. It's sole use seems to be to assume a moral authority over another person and shame them into capitulating rather than actually engaging their viewpoint.

Welcome to human civilisation, which is founded on that approach.

Law is a framework, not a complete statement of moral obligation. It's not illegal to stand by and watch someone drown without doing a thing to help. Nor should it be. But that doesn't mean that it's acceptable.

Oh I dunno... what it if were Trump?

Moral authority is entirely based on shaming people into doing the right thing. That's why shameless liars and hypocrites in positions of power are so corrosive to civilisation.

There's a reason I'm more strongly inclined to ethics than to morality. Moral authority is frequently highly caustic.

 

[Patooka]

I think the "because" in the case of D-Day had more to do with defense against an aggressor than with democracy.

Umm...I read the news today oh boy...

I don't understand this.

Sorry, I was being far too esoteric. I'm saying bilby's analogy is quite accurate as in the last couple of months, the US Administration has kidnapped people, gassed a crowd of peaceful protestors for a photo op, gleefully describing police shooting at reporters as beautiful and deliberately threw Americans under a bus during a pandemic because of who they voted for last election cycle. An imperfect argument can be made that any act of violence in the current climate is defense against an aggressor.

 

[Metaphor]

Maybe... but I give it good odds that it's also a politically savvy move.

Oh definitely. Virtue-signalling is done to gain some kind of benefit, and that can include obtaining an increase in political capital.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think it is interesting that Romney voted to impeach Trump... but is fine with letting a person that should have been impeached, to put another Justice on the Bench. The Mormon Church is quite good with a Christian Theocracy that this seat provides them.

Man, I bet all those libertarians are blushing now!

 

[Worldtraveller]

I think it is interesting that Romney voted to impeach Trump... but is fine with letting a person that should have been impeached, to put another Justice on the Bench. The Mormon Church is quite good with a Christian Theocracy that this seat provides them.

Man, I bet all those libertarians are blushing now!

Blushing would imply a sense of shame....

 

[crazyfingers]

I think it is interesting that Romney voted to impeach Trump... but is fine with letting a person that should have been impeached, to put another Justice on the Bench. The Mormon Church is quite good with a Christian Theocracy that this seat provides them.

Man, I bet all those libertarians are blushing now!

Yup.

 

[Trausti]

I think it is interesting that Romney voted to impeach Trump... but is fine with letting a person that should have been impeached, to put another Justice on the Bench. The Mormon Church is quite good with a Christian Theocracy that this seat provides them.

Man, I bet all those libertarians are blushing now!

That Romney at times can be loved and hated by both Republicans and Democrats makes him perhaps the most ethical politician in DC.