I disagree. We’ve had a lot of really interesting debates based on fantasy - “What if this battle had gone differently in WWII?” “What would first contact with an alien civilization look like?” “What would happen if this political policy were enacted?” are all “fantasies,” and all have the potential to turn into interesting discussions.
I suppose sooner or later somebody is going to look at the Republicans and have an “at long last, have you no shame?” moment. I don’t see why it can’t be a SCOTUS nominee.
You don’t, eh?
This is why you lose.
What is so special about 60?
…that doesn’t even make sense.
You’re showing signs of having lost far more than I have, pal, but I’ll bite. What physically prevents a SCOTUS nominee from deciding to make a political statement decrying Republicans, or indeed anything? Granted, SCOTUS nominees have not been known to make a habit of this sort of thing, but the election of Donald Trump has forced a serious recalibration of what one can expect from American politics.
I know nothing about Kavanaugh personally, I cheerfully admit, but in the purely hypothetical (which I can process and it seems you cannot), why is it impossible for him or someone in his position to make a bold statement of this nature?
Neither do I, really. But I found this very interesting. Not sure I’m 100% on board with her, but it is an interesting take.
Nothing physically prevents him. If he did it, it would not violate known physical laws of the universe.
But it’s so unlikely as to be not worth entertaining— and the real kicker is: even if we entertain it, the only thing that would change is that Trump would appoint the next vacancy, and the Court would be split 5-3-1 - Five constructionists, three living constitutionalists, and one abstention.
Courteously.
In other words, even if the impossibly rare event happened, it wouldn’t change the politicized mood.
The entire thread is Libby Magical Thinking. It’s as likely as Mad-Eye Moody casting Imperious on the Court to ensure a generation of happy socialist rulings.
I accept your apology.
Then don’t entertain it, and excuse yourself from the thread. The rest of us will be free to continue entertaining the notion, even if it is, in the words of the OP, preposterous.
Anyway, what would happen if SCOTUS judges (and nominees, for the sake of argument) began commenting on what they perceived as failures in the modern political process? It’s become established that the executive and legislative branches can snipe at each other freely, what if the judiciary wanted a piece of the action?
The answer is that this would further accelerate the leftist-sponsored erosion of the role of the judiciary, turning them ever further into super-legislators. Unelected, lifetime-appointed super-legislators. Leftists love this – when the judges agree with them.
You never got back to me in that other thread about what made the distinctions between various judgments meaningful.
I expect Rightists do, too, when the judges vote the way they like. I’m just amused by the idea that Scalia, had he felt unconstrained to comment as he pleased, would be advancing any kind of leftist agenda by doing so.
Also, I don’t think “erosion” is quite appropriate. “Mutation”, perhaps, if I believed your premise.
It makes sense to me. We keep working on the principles that the republican party actually does have a conscience to be shamed, and it is that incorrect assumption that causes us to underestimate the lengths that they will go to satisfy their petty and selfish impulses.
You can ask if they have no shame, but they will just be contemptuously amused at your presumption, and say, “Nah.” as they continue to separate children from their parents to hand them over to pedophiles.
Incidentally, I was misremembering the quote - Welch asked McCarthy if he had “no sense of decency”, not “shame”.
As best I can tell, modern Republicans have neither.
You misspelled “Federalist Society-sponsored.”
And yet, it’s the right thing to do.
Did that also happen with Democrats? Or was it just Republicans?
What is the “that” that you speak of in your current attempt at whataboutism?
If we are speaking specifically about border policy, then yes, that is in the republican’s court. There was enforcement before, and there were some hard choices made in how to deal with families that were crossing the border together, and it is quite unfortunate that that situation created an inevitability of cases of abuse, even though the numbers of families affected were kept to a minimum. I am also not aware that legal asylum seekers were subject to this policy, nor am I aware of and democratic policies that physically blocked asylum seekers from reaching legal points of entry.
However, it was the republicans who stepped up the policy of separating families, even of legal asylum seekers and touted it specifically as a punishment to deter asylum and refugee seekers. It was republicans who directed border patrol to prevent asylum seekers from reaching legal points of entry. It was republicans who stepped up the practice of separating children from their families with no plan whatsoever on ever reuniting them. It is republicans who turn to the ACLU, and say that if they are so worried about children separated from their parents, then the ACLU should be the one to track them down to reunite them, rather than the govt who is responsible for the situation in the first place.
When you are actively beating people with the beam extending from your own eye, complaining about the mote in your neighbor’s eye is a mark of having no shame, no shame at all.
If your whataboutism is about shame in general, then we can go back and forth. There have been times in history that either party has done things that it should not have. To point to a time in the past when your opponent did something that you consider to be bad as justification for doing something worse yourself is not a way to avoid hypocrisy.
At this time, the republican party has no shame or sense of decency. Maybe that will change, maybe a different party will emerge from the ashes of the old, maybe the moderate members of the party will take it back to being for fiscal conservatism and slow cultural change, rather than the current platform of massive deficits and violent reactions to not just slow, but to reverse social progress and reforms. I’d say that this is definitely the lowest mark of shamelessness for either party by a very wide margin.
Maybe the republican party will get its act together, but, as my predictions tend to be much more accurate the more pessimistic I am, I find the optimism required to consider the republican party actually reforming itself into a party that puts the long term interests of the country above the short term interests of individuals to make it highly unlikely.
I think we need more Kennedy type Justices not less. Patisan politics (i.e. My Team!) is ripping this country apart. While I personally have sided with decisions from Justices such as Bader-Ginsburg and Marshall over Alito and Scalia, I think a more moderate approach is good for the country.