On: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

[AuryGlenz]

It’s absolutely hypocritical, and if the Democrats has been in the same position they’d do the exact same thing.

[bruce511 → AuryGlenz]

Maybe they would, and maybe they wouldn't - time will tell.

But the argument that "it's OK for us to do it, because they would" seems a bit thin.

It's OK to loot this store because if I don't someone else will...

And it's OK to do anything I like as long as I can point a finger and say "but he'd do it too"

So, yeah, this is a textbook case of hipocrasy, but being hipocratic doesn't matter as long as we win.

[untog → AuryGlenz]

In this situation in 2020, I agree, they would. In 2016? I don’t see the reasoning that they would have.

The reality of the situation is that in the US one party constantly pushes boundaries and test limits. The other party then adjusts to attempt to counteract that. Yet it’s sold as “both sides are just as bad as each other”

[rayiner → untog]

Democrats literally threatened to pack the Supreme Court so they could get expansive interpretations of the Constitution to push through the new deal. They are constantly attacking structural features of our government and institutions, whether it’s chipping away at federalism or creating fourth branches of government out of whole cloth.

[dctoedt → rayiner]

> Democrats literally threatened to pack the Supreme Court so they could get expansive interpretations of the Constitution to push through the new deal. They are constantly attacking structural features of our government and institutions ...

Court expansion hasn't happened yet, but if it does:

1. Them's the rules; sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. (Or: Live by the rules, die by the rules.) (Or: Karma's a bitch, ain't it?)

2. What you call the "structural features of our government and institutions" are meant to serve the people, not vice versa. It's idolatry to put those features on a pedestal and declare them to be immutable. Presuming adequate protection of genuine minority rights, it's not illegitimate for a democratically-elected government to use lawful means to try to restructure existing institutions in pursuit of the majority's felt political needs.

[untog → rayiner]

The fact that you have to go back nearly 100 years to come up with an example kind of proves my point.

[res0nat0r → rayiner]

This is complete nonsense. Your comments on this subject seem to be 100% ideological not based in reality unlike most of your other grounded legal arguments on other subjects.

[TimTheTinker → untog]

I’m curious which parties you’re referring to. Conservatives are called that literally because they want to conserve something from the past.

In this case, the left is marching forward with all sorts of new policies—often ostensibly to deal with a societal problem, but causing more problems because the policy does not derive from first principles.

[res0nat0r → AuryGlenz]

They wouldn't, because they never would have blocked a GOP nominee in the first place for 293 days.