Is what the Republicans are doing ethical?

[GeneralMacArthur]

Regardless of whether or not you want them to do it, which it seems like all Republicans do, do you actually believe that what they're doing is ethical?  Or is it unethical, but the ends justify the means?

https://twitter.com/JeffFlake/status/1307467223905132545

[Horus]

The answer to this is always no.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

A Supreme Court seat has fallen vacant. The President will nominate a qualified justice to fill it, and the Senate will hopefully confirm them. This is the constitutional process. It is not tyranny when Democrats lose, and a political party that entertains these ideas should not attain power in our Republic.

[SteveRogers]

A Supreme Court seat has fallen vacant. The President will nominate a qualified justice to fill it, and the Senate will hopefully confirm them. This is the constitutional process. It is not tyranny when Democrats lose, and a political party that entertains these ideas should not attain power in our Republic.

The question wasn’t whether it is legal, but rather whether it is ethical. Republicans have manifestly not behaved in an ethical manner here.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

A Supreme Court seat has fallen vacant. The President will nominate a qualified justice to fill it, and the Senate will hopefully confirm them. This is the constitutional process. It is not tyranny when Democrats lose, and a political party that entertains these ideas should not attain power in our Republic.

The question wasn’t whether it is legal, but rather whether it is ethical. Republicans have manifestly not behaved in an ethical manner here.

Republicans have unethically sought to promote Republican policies instead of Democratic policies, which all ethical people support.

[SteveRogers]

A Supreme Court seat has fallen vacant. The President will nominate a qualified justice to fill it, and the Senate will hopefully confirm them. This is the constitutional process. It is not tyranny when Democrats lose, and a political party that entertains these ideas should not attain power in our Republic.

The question wasn’t whether it is legal, but rather whether it is ethical. Republicans have manifestly not behaved in an ethical manner here.

Republicans have unethically sought to promote Republican policies instead of Democratic policies, which all ethical people support.

Surely we can agree that lying is unethical, no?

"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,"

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

A Supreme Court seat has fallen vacant. The President will nominate a qualified justice to fill it, and the Senate will hopefully confirm them. This is the constitutional process. It is not tyranny when Democrats lose, and a political party that entertains these ideas should not attain power in our Republic.

The question wasn’t whether it is legal, but rather whether it is ethical. Republicans have manifestly not behaved in an ethical manner here.

Republicans have unethically sought to promote Republican policies instead of Democratic policies, which all ethical people support.

Surely we can agree that lying is unethical, no?

"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,"

Sure, every Democrat who supported last year nominations will oppose them and vice versa. The first and most salient distinction in politics is that between friend and enemy.

[7,052,770]

Jeff Flake is so full of it. There's NO WAY he would hold this position if he were still in the Senate.

[Badger]

A Supreme Court seat has fallen vacant. The President will nominate a qualified justice to fill it, and the Senate will hopefully confirm them. This is the constitutional process. It is not tyranny when Democrats lose, and a political party that entertains these ideas should not attain power in our Republic.

The question wasn’t whether it is legal, but rather whether it is ethical. Republicans have manifestly not behaved in an ethical manner here.

Republicans have unethically sought to promote Republican policies instead of Democratic policies, which all ethical people support.

Surely we can agree that lying is unethical, no?

"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,"

Sure, every Democrat who supported last year nominations will oppose them and vice versa. The first and most salient distinction in politics is that between friend and enemy.

So your only binding political principle and ideal for governing the birthplace of Democracy is "Me and mine got ours, so f##k you!" Good to know.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A Supreme Court seat has fallen vacant. The President will nominate a qualified justice to fill it, and the Senate will hopefully confirm them. This is the constitutional process. It is not tyranny when Democrats lose, and a political party that entertains these ideas should not attain power in our Republic.

The question wasn’t whether it is legal, but rather whether it is ethical. Republicans have manifestly not behaved in an ethical manner here.

Republicans have unethically sought to promote Republican policies instead of Democratic policies, which all ethical people support.

Surely we can agree that lying is unethical, no?

"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,"

Sure, every Democrat who supported last year nominations will oppose them and vice versa. The first and most salient distinction in politics is that between friend and enemy.

So your only binding political principle and ideal for governing the birthplace of Democracy is "Me and mine got ours, so f##k you!" Good to know.

I thought we were discussing U.S. politics, not Greek politics. 😏

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

A Supreme Court seat has fallen vacant. The President will nominate a qualified justice to fill it, and the Senate will hopefully confirm them. This is the constitutional process. It is not tyranny when Democrats lose, and a political party that entertains these ideas should not attain power in our Republic.

The question wasn’t whether it is legal, but rather whether it is ethical. Republicans have manifestly not behaved in an ethical manner here.

Republicans have unethically sought to promote Republican policies instead of Democratic policies, which all ethical people support.

Surely we can agree that lying is unethical, no?

"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,"

Sure, every Democrat who supported last year nominations will oppose them and vice versa. The first and most salient distinction in politics is that between friend and enemy.

So your only binding political principle and ideal for governing the birthplace of Democracy is "Me and mine got ours, so f##k you!" Good to know.

If you would like cooperation in politics, it is wise to avoid yelling that you will defect every time you lose. Conservatives are not going to bind themselves in the principles of the one way ratchet. Both sides have a legitimate ability to win the culture war.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

It certainly wasn't ethical for Pelosi to lead a sham impeachment during an election year, so Mitch is just giving the Dems the middle finger that they deserve.

[HillGoose]

nothing the two party big gov system does is ever ethical, except the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars and the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Those were the only ethical things.

[dead0man]

no

[Ferguson97]

It certainly wasn't ethical for Pelosi to lead a sham impeachment during an election year, so Mitch is just giving the Dems the middle finger that they deserve.

It wasn't a sham.

[Badger]

It certainly wasn't ethical for Pelosi to lead a sham impeachment during an election year, so Mitch is just giving the Dems the middle finger that they deserve.

)

Fairness be damned. We will stab our fellow Americans in the gut and curb stop them if we can get away with it. But you Democrats keep playing nice!

[DINGO Joe]

Whether it's bribing Jane Roe, Jerry Falwell, All them Trumps, or Lindsey "Hold Me To It" Graham, the Republicans from top to bottom are filthy unethical pigsh**t. 

[Brittain33]

This is not ethical if you believe in a democratic system with the legitimacy of the people. This is only ethical if you believe the ends justify the means. The purpose of this move is to prevent a democratically elected government from passing policies that are constitutional by creating a way for 5 justices to veto the legislation. Judicial supremacy in the interest of constitutionalism and human rights is justifiable; judicial supremacy in the interest of the Republican Party's preferences is not.

[beaver2.0]

Constitutional, yes, but in light of statements made by pretty much the whole of the Republican caucus in 2016, it is not ethical to operate under different guidelines for a Republican president.

[7,052,770]

It certainly wasn't ethical for Pelosi to lead a sham impeachment during an election year, so Mitch is just giving the Dems the middle finger that they deserve.

It takes a special kind of hack to think the Ukraine scandal wasn't impeachable.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

In 2016, I thought our messaging was bad.  What I would have said was something like "the Senate has an equal role to the president.  We will be categorically rejecting any nominee that does not share Justice Scalia's interpretation of the Constitution".  That was both what I was thinking at the time and would not have put us in a position to look like hypocrites now.

So, I support filling the seat now, but to use SCOTUS terms, I concurred with McConnell's judgment to not seat Garland, but for a slightly different reasoning.

[DINGO Joe]

In 2016, I thought our messaging was bad.  What I would have said was something like "the Senate has an equal role to the president.  We will be categorically rejecting any nominee that does not share Justice Scalia's interpretation of the Constitution".  That was both what I was thinking at the time and would not have put us in a position to look like hypocrites now.

So, I support filling the seat now, but to use SCOTUS terms, I concurred with McConnell's judgment to not seat Garland, but for a slightly different reasoning.

Well, the Rs couldn't have been more explicit in their statements regarding their justifications for denying Garland a vote and your mealy mouthed parsing just demonstrates my point that Republicans are POS from top to bottom.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

At some point principles and process went out the window in favor of winning at any cost.

The problem is once you have broken the system, the whole point in the victory is hollow. The quest for the Supreme Court was entirely for the purpose of the Supreme Court having both the power and legitimacy to make concerted changes to the way the law has been interpreted. If you destroy the court's legitimacy you basically reach a point where it becomes a rubber stamp. Each party will pack it when they have a majority creating essentially a third house of Congress that is just a rubber stamp for whatever the majority party does.

At a certain point Conservatism has got to step back from the abyss of radicalism, martyrdom and brinkmanship, because the damage done by such "deviant" acts is and can only redound to the benefit of the left long term. Conservatives whenever they convince themselves that "well the other side has done x, so I can do y" end up going too far and destroying themselves in the process. This is Nixonian approach to conservatism and look how that turned out for the right, and look at the consequences of that in terms of the primary area of concern for the right at the time (anti-communism).

Conservatives make for horrendous radicals and self-destroying insurgents. You cannot be the architects of chaos and expect to protect anything, traditional values, constitutional freedom, whatever conservative attribute appeals most to you. Chaos disrupts traditional society, chaos causes freedoms to erode. Conservatives cannot do chaos and succeed, it is just as contradictory as the mess of Conservatism that made Trump so appealing in the first place.

Remember this, the path to hell is paved with "but the other side did x". If you sell your soul to stick it to the other side, how are you any different from them?

If you fear the radicalism on the left and worry about it eating the system alive, why are you doing their work for them by degrading the system yourself for your own gain?

A large part of the problem is that many people who think of themselves as being conservatives became so for the wrong reasons and thus lack the principles and standards that would in such circumstances guide them to make the right choices. Not because it sticks it to antifa, but because it accomplishes a tangible conservative objective in some important or critical area. A lot of what we pin down as being ideological, is really just identity politics masking itself and justifying itself. That is why you have the hypocrisy here and the double standards. It is also why Republicans are incapable of actually delivering tangible results for all of their promises and often end up letting their own voters down.

[GeneralMacArthur]

In 2016, I thought our messaging was bad.  What I would have said was something like "the Senate has an equal role to the president.  We will be categorically rejecting any nominee that does not share Justice Scalia's interpretation of the Constitution".  That was both what I was thinking at the time and would not have put us in a position to look like hypocrites now.

So, I support filling the seat now, but to use SCOTUS terms, I concurred with McConnell's judgment to not seat Garland, but for a slightly different reasoning.

The Republicans literally proposed Merrick Garland as the nominee.  They said "we'd love to confirm someone like Merrick Garland but that's not who Obama's gonna nominate."

That was the entire reason Obama nominated Merrick Garland in the first place -- the Republicans had literally said that they wanted to confirm him.  What "role" is the Senate playing in the "advise and consent" process when the GOP literally says "we will advise and consent if you nominate this guy" and then the president nominates the guy and they say "lol jk"?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In 2016, I thought our messaging was bad.  What I would have said was something like "the Senate has an equal role to the president.  We will be categorically rejecting any nominee that does not share Justice Scalia's interpretation of the Constitution".  That was both what I was thinking at the time and would not have put us in a position to look like hypocrites now.

So, I support filling the seat now, but to use SCOTUS terms, I concurred with McConnell's judgment to not seat Garland, but for a slightly different reasoning.

The Republicans literally proposed Merrick Garland as the nominee.  They said "we'd love to confirm someone like Merrick Garland but that's not who Obama's gonna nominate."

That was the entire reason Obama nominated Merrick Garland in the first place -- the Republicans had literally said that they wanted to confirm him.  What "role" is the Senate playing in the "advise and consent" process when the GOP literally says "we will advise and consent if you nominate this guy" and then the president nominates the guy and they say "lol jk"?

Republican Senators acted stupidly, because none of them wanted to cross over the threshold and openly say they endorsed a litmus test for Supreme Court Justices. So they twisted themselves into a pretzel and let their own rhetoric convince themselves that Obama would have to pick a radical. They basically went all in on a pair of tens and left a huge opening for Obama to drop a royal flush.

This is the kind of stupidity and incompetence that dominates the minds of Republican politicians and the conservative establishment. It also illustrates that it predates Trump.