The answer is absolutely they should... But seems like they don't want to...
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
-12 points (35.7% liked)
politics
19107 readers
2827 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The article begins by praising Mitch McConnell, who abused the rules to deny Merrick Garland's appointment to the Supreme Court.
So, I think you're right. But the article was interesting to me because it's basically a conversation between some dude that did a presentation on the rules of the legislature or something at a religious event and those on the right who think "the other side does it, so should we", as if Democrats are just lawless. His idea of what it means to follow the rules rejects the implementation of "results-oriented opinion", as if that's not what Mitch McConnell did, and as if that's not what the Supreme Court is doing.
Yeah stuff like this article suggesting basically that Mitch McConnell did nothing outside of the norms and completely followed the rules. Just makes me so sad and annoyed.
Stealing that seat was a dagger in the heart of our republic.
Mitch McConnell definitely twisted himself into a pretzel justifying his Supreme Court decisions. You can't take up consideration of a Supreme Court pick 8 months before an election because it's too close. But if it's actually DURING an election, it's fine as long as the Senate is controlled by the same party as the presidency and as long as the Moon is waxing and the month ends in the letter R.
See? Totally an easy to understand rule!
It’s much simpler than that. Anything is fine as long as the party doing it STARTS with the letter R.
I tried to read this article, but I only got to the bit about McConnell blocking Garland's nomination before it was clear that the author is so far up his own ass that it's pointless trying to relate his points to what happened in the real world.
Blocking Merrick Garland might have seemed like a clever political ploy at the time, but his subsequent rush approval of Amy Coney Barrett will go down in history as a textbook demonstration of hypocrisy in politics.
I think Mitch McConnell's hypocrisy will be the one thing he'll be remembered for. Similar to how Benedict Arnold is simply remembered for being a traitor, Mitch McConnell will simply be remembered for being a hypocrite.
Yep they packed the supreme court because they do not follow rules despite them claiming to be a party of "law and order". Which is a complete lie. Stupid people will believe that and still vote for them despite voting any republican in is hurting the nation.
No, they are the party of "law and order," which is distinct from "rule of law". Rule of law is when the law applies equally to everyone without fear or favor, that no one is above it. Law and order is when the law is used as a cudgel to maintain existing social structures, that's the order part. Law and order is firehoses and dogs used on protestors, is sundown towns, is starlight rides.
I wouldn’t exactly call McConnell’s preventing of Garland’s confirmation “playing by the rules”. He failed to perform his constitutional duty citing a rule that doesn’t exist. Then when that fake rule became inconvenient during Trump’s term, he just changed it. Either way you look at it, he wasn’t playing by the rules.
As the article makes clear - mcconnell “followed the rules”. But what it doesn’t say is “the rules as he interpreted them on any given day”. Its easy to say you are following the rules when you can basically just make them up or mean whatever you want them to mean
i mean
no? they got fucking roe overturned, they're winning! why would they stop when the consequences don't even seem to matter?
So the article isn't quite asking that. It is asking "Do we need people who know what they're doing, who can fuck things up in careful procedural fashion to get what we want and consequences be damned? Or is it time to start relying more at this point on people who will firebomb the abortion clinics and break in the Capitol to kill our enemies?"
There's nothing in there about doing what's actually legal. It's just about getting what we want by being political scumbags like McConnell vs. getting what we want by any means necessary.
After I saw Project2025, I knew we were at this point. When you can plan a literal coup in broad daylight and you don't get arrested by the FBI, the republic is fucked. Republicans are just deciding if they should continue using the legal framework to sabotage democracy some more or if they're far enough along for the violent coup to start.
I wish I could disagree
They did get Roe overturned, but doing that has cost them immensely in basically every election cycle since 2016. And now they’re so divided they can’t even elect a speaker.
Uhh Dobbs v Jackson was only last year....
It started with denying Obama his last Supreme Court pick. Well, it started well before that, but you know…
They also elected Trump in order to overturn Roe, and that has cost them.
This article openly implies something that I wish moderates and liberals would understand and internalise.
Conservatives do not care about the rules. They do not value the process. It is only a means to an end for them, if the means does not lead to their desired end, they will abandon it.
That is not how moderates and liberals tend to conceptualise politics, where the rules and the process are of the utmost importance, even when you lose. Where the means matter more than the ends.
It explains so much of why conservatives seem to get things done with any scrap of power, but liberals and progressives need larger majorities to accomplish similar changes.
Hmm, I like how you explicitly identify this, though I disagree with the implication that liberals should abandon the rules. I think we need significantly stronger enforcement of the rules, not a lack of them. Because what did it cost McConnell to block Garland, and then nominate A. C. Barrett? Nothing. Nothing at all.
In a bad-faith political environment where the incentives to follow rules are based merely on good-faith, give the rules teeth and make them sharp.
Conservatives identify the ends that they desire and then steamroll forward to enact those ends, with indifference to the rules and the process. The ends are what matters.
Ideally, the means would determine the ends all on their own. The rules and process exist in order to ensure that whatever ends are achieved are fair and just. Fairness and justice are what matters, not any specific end.
More succinctly, the only thing that matters to these people is power. They do not care what they have to do to get it.
I'm going to point out that this article is posted in "The American Conservative." Of course they're not going to point out that Republicans are playing fast and loose with the rules. Ethics and legality are secondary considerations to gaining and keeping power.
From Francis Wilhoit:
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
TLDR: "screw the rules, we have money"
Yes