Is what the Republicans are doing ethical?

[Santander]

Nothing any Republican does is ever ethical.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I wouldn't call it "unethical".  I'm not sure that's the word to use if you wish to criticize this.

Definition of ethic

1ethics plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation

2a: a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values
the present-day materialistic ethic
an old-fashioned work ethic
—often used in plural but singular or plural in construction
an elaborate ethics
Christian ethics
bethics plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group
professional ethics

c: a guiding philosophy

d: a consciousness of moral importance
forge a conservation ethic

3ethics plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (such as rightness)
debated the ethics of human cloning

How "ethical" would it be for a pro-life politician, who has gotten elected on the promise of opposing what his/her supporters consider to be infanticide, to oppose a vote on RBG's replacement, after promising their supporters (and taking campaign money from them) that they would vote for Justices likely to refuse to expand Roe?  If the shoe were on the other foot, how ethical would it be for a Democrat to oppose a vote on a Democratic appointee if, say, Chuck Schumer were wanting to rush a vote in the wake of the death of a GOP Senator who was replaced by a placeholder Democrat likely to be defeated in a Special Election?  Would waiting for a permanent replacement be the "right thing" for Senators who have taken money and promised their supporters that they would do whatever necessary to advance the Feminist Agenda that RBG's body of work on the SCOTUS have certainly supported?

It is ethical for politicians to advance what they promise to advance.  Whether those policies themselves are "moral" are matters for debate, but they are matters in which there are often divisions without consensus.  It is moral for Mitch McConnell to block one nomination and push through another simply because he has the power to do so, as long as he's not taking bribes or other corrupt compensations to do so.  Now McConnell should have said this in 2016.  He should have made it clear that what he was doing was keeping faith with those who supported Republicans and that it is ethical to do so, without the drivel of "it's a Presidential year", etc.  He's earned the flak he's getting.  But let's stop the "ethical" issue.  These are the rules, and there are times when events grossly tip the balance of a decision in one direction or another.  It is unethical for an elected official to not take advantage of this.  Politics is not a debating society; it is the process by which public policy is determined.  It would be as unethical for Republicans to NOT seek a vote as it would be for Democrats to seek to not delay the vote.

[Wakie77]

It isn't even close to being ethical.  2 < 10 except in a Republican world.

[Sbane]

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.

If Republicans don't hold themselves to any ethical standard, why should Democrats? They would be absolutely within their rights to expand the court if they wanted to, just like the Republicans can legally confirm an appointee right now.

Republicans created their own standard in 2016 for appointing justices and just four years later they don't want to hold themselves to their own standard. This act is weakening the institution of the Supreme Court and delegitimizing it.

[Wakie77]

If Republicans don't hold themselves to any ethical standard, why should Democrats?

In the past I always respected the Republican party.  I didn't agree with them most of the time but I always respected them and believed that they actually wanted what was best for America even if they disagreed on how to get there.  I no longer respect them nor do I believe they actually want what is best for America.

I think the Republican Party is a pseudo mafia organization willing to do anything to line their pockets and seize more power.

It started in 2000 when their operatives attacked a government office where ballots were being counted so that they could prevent a recount.  They have embraced illegal coordination with foreign powers and pardoned convicted criminals who lied to Congress.  They don't even have a party platform this year, it is just blind allegiance to 1 person.  A person who thinks it is beautiful to use violence against someone who disagrees with them.

They are not ethical.  Not by a long shot.

[Badger]

Nothing any Republican does is ever ethical.

[Torie]

Not all that is opportunistic is unethical. The way things are going, a Senate controlled by the opposite party will never (well hardly ever) confirm a nominee no matter where on the calendar we are, absent the nominee being ideologically acceptable, or doing some nominee horse trading). This late in the POTUS term chat is just sales and marketing jive on all sides. It is all about power, and given the increasing "elasticity" of what the words in the Constitution means given its undefined broad sweeping terms (terribly poor drafting I must say for anyone desiring a tightly written contract that is ripe for litigation at the very moment it comes out its womb, to pick a metaphor at random), SCOTUS nominees are a worthy candidate for being ground zero. 

[Badger]

Not all that is opportunistic is unethical. The way things are going, a Senate controlled by the opposite party will never (well hardly ever) confirm a nominee no matter where on the calendar we are, absent the nominee being ideologically acceptable, or doing some nominee horse trading). This late in the POTUS term chat is just sales and marketing jive on all sides. It is all about power, and given the increasing "elasticity" of what the words in the Constitution means given its undefined broad sweeping terms (terribly poor drafting I must say for anyone desiring a tightly written contract that is ripe for litigation at the very moment it comes out its womb, to pick a metaphor at random), SCOTUS nominees are a worthy candidate for being ground zero. 

With respect, Torie, this is about the last issue appropriate for both sides ISM. And saying that not every single action that is opportunistic is by definition per say unethical doesn't begin to address the underlying issue in this instance.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If Republicans don't hold themselves to any ethical standard, why should Democrats?

In the past I always respected the Republican party.  I didn't agree with them most of the time but I always respected them and believed that they actually wanted what was best for America even if they disagreed on how to get there.  I no longer respect them nor do I believe they actually want what is best for America.

I think the Republican Party is a pseudo mafia organization willing to do anything to line their pockets and seize more power.

It started in 2000 when their operatives attacked a government office where ballots were being counted so that they could prevent a recount.  They have embraced illegal coordination with foreign powers and pardoned convicted criminals who lied to Congress.  They don't even have a party platform this year, it is just blind allegiance to 1 person.  A person who thinks it is beautiful to use violence against someone who disagrees with them.

They are not ethical.  Not by a long shot.

So a Democratic Party that took over three (3) months to acknowledge (let alone condemn) violent criminal activity in over 40 American cities isn't a lack of ethics?

If you're right, it's only because the Democrats lacked the courage to condemn criminality in the streets that ought to be viewed by all involved as flat-out wrong, regardless of motive.  (And it ought to be clear now that "George Floyd" isn't what keeps the violence going.)

Perhaps I'm wrong.  Perhaps we DON'T have a consensus as to the acceptability of political violence in America.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[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.

If Republicans don't hold themselves to any ethical standard, why should Democrats? They would be absolutely within their rights to expand the court if they wanted to, just like the Republicans can legally confirm an appointee right now.

Republicans created their own standard in 2016 for appointing justices and just four years later they don't want to hold themselves to their own standard. This act is weakening the institution of the Supreme Court and delegitimizing it.

Democrats would be within their rights to do so, but the course would of course be expanded in turn.

[7,052,770]

So a Democratic Party that took over three (3) months to acknowledge (let alone condemn) violent criminal activity in over 40 American cities isn't a lack of ethics?

If you're right, it's only because the Democrats lacked the courage to condemn criminality in the streets that ought to be viewed by all involved as flat-out wrong, regardless of motive.  (And it ought to be clear now that "George Floyd" isn't what keeps the violence going.)

Perhaps I'm wrong.  Perhaps we DON'T have a consensus as to the acceptability of political violence in America.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Why do you lie like this? It's so disgraceful and sinful.

As you know, Biden condemned violence and rioting in May.

https://medium.com/@JoeBiden/we-are-a-nation-furious-at-injustice-9dcffd81978f

[SWE]

Nothing the Republicans do could be ethical because the whole point of the Republican party is to hurt people. If McConnell gave Garland a fair trial and he was appointed, and if Trump won a large popular vote mandate in 2016, appointing a Federalist Society sociopath to strip away people's rights would still be unethical.

[Trump Is A Maoist]

Why do you lie like this? It's so disgraceful and sinful.

As you know, Biden condemned violence and rioting in May.

https://medium.com/@JoeBiden/we-are-a-nation-furious-at-injustice-9dcffd81978f

Fuzzy is now the living embodiment of the Liberal NPC meme but in reverse. ORANGE MAN GOOD! ELEPHANT PARTY GOOD! You throw facts at him that his scripts are unable to counter-argue against and he glitches out and acts like it never happened, only to come back and repeat the same flawed talking point a week later.

How exactly does that help the political discourse on Atlas and in America?

[Sbane]

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.

If Republicans don't hold themselves to any ethical standard, why should Democrats? They would be absolutely within their rights to expand the court if they wanted to, just like the Republicans can legally confirm an appointee right now.

Republicans created their own standard in 2016 for appointing justices and just four years later they don't want to hold themselves to their own standard. This act is weakening the institution of the Supreme Court and delegitimizing it.

Democrats would be within their rights to do so, but the course would of course be expanded in turn.

Sure, and we keep going back and forth until we have a 100 Supreme Court Justice. That is why it should never begin. That is why Republicans should follow the same standard they set just four damn years ago by the same exact people. It's not as if it was another group of Republicans. Most of the Republican Senators from back then are still present today. They are shameless cowards.

Perhaps, reforming how Supreme Court nominees are picked is the true solution. I just don't see that happening though.

[MarkD]

It's more ethical, now, to have a vote on confirming a Supreme Court nominee before the end of the year, than to do what the Republicans did to Judge Merrick Garland in 2016. That was unethical. A mistake, an unethical act, like what was done in 2016 should not become precedent; it should not be repeated.

I hear Democrats crying "hypocrisy" at the fact that the Republicans are not, now, abiding by their words and deeds in 2016. That accusation of hypocrisy cuts both ways. Neither party is making the same arguments as they did four years ago. Both parties are saying now the exact opposite of what they said four years ago. The shoe is merely on the other foot for both parties.

A plague on both your parties. But the Senate should do the right thing this time, even if that contradicts what the Senate did four years ago. Because what was done four years ago was wrong.

[Sbane]

It's more ethical, now, to have a vote on confirming a Supreme Court nominee before the end of the year, than to do what the Republicans did to Judge Merrick Garland in 2016. That was unethical. A mistake, an unethical act, like what was done in 2016 should not become precedent; it should not be repeated.

I hear Democrats crying "hypocrisy" at the fact that the Republicans are not, now, abiding by their words and deeds in 2016. That accusation of hypocrisy cuts both ways. Neither party is making the same arguments as they did four years ago. Both parties are saying now the exact opposite of what they said four years ago. The shoe is merely on the other foot for both parties.

A plague on both your parties. But the Senate should do the right thing this time, even if that contradicts what the Senate did four years ago. Because what was done four years ago was wrong.

That's not what the Republicans are doing though. They aren't apologizing for what they did four years ago. They think what they did four years ago was totally justified and what they are doing now is totally justified. I do see your point, but how exactly do we ensure this doesn't happen again? Reform is needed at the very least or else we are headed in a very dangerous direction.

[Wakie77]

If Republicans don't hold themselves to any ethical standard, why should Democrats?

In the past I always respected the Republican party.  I didn't agree with them most of the time but I always respected them and believed that they actually wanted what was best for America even if they disagreed on how to get there.  I no longer respect them nor do I believe they actually want what is best for America.

I think the Republican Party is a pseudo mafia organization willing to do anything to line their pockets and seize more power.

It started in 2000 when their operatives attacked a government office where ballots were being counted so that they could prevent a recount.  They have embraced illegal coordination with foreign powers and pardoned convicted criminals who lied to Congress.  They don't even have a party platform this year, it is just blind allegiance to 1 person.  A person who thinks it is beautiful to use violence against someone who disagrees with them.

They are not ethical.  Not by a long shot.

So a Democratic Party that took over three (3) months to acknowledge (let alone condemn) violent criminal activity in over 40 American cities isn't a lack of ethics?

If you're right, it's only because the Democrats lacked the courage to condemn criminality in the streets that ought to be viewed by all involved as flat-out wrong, regardless of motive.  (And it ought to be clear now that "George Floyd" isn't what keeps the violence going.)

Perhaps I'm wrong.  Perhaps we DON'T have a consensus as to the acceptability of political violence in America.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong.  Political violence is wrong.  When there were riots the Dems condemned them.  When a bunch of Brooks Brothers thugs attacked a polling office in Florida Republicans celebrated.  The NYC RNC had the head of the Proud Boys as a speaker!  Trump said it was "Beautiful" that a reporter covering a demonstration was shot.

Republicans in America are no more ethical than the PLO was in Israel in the 80s.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I wouldn't call it "unethical".  I'm not sure that's the word to use if you wish to criticize this.

Definition of ethic

1ethics plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation

2a: a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values
the present-day materialistic ethic
an old-fashioned work ethic
—often used in plural but singular or plural in construction
an elaborate ethics
Christian ethics
bethics plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group
professional ethics

c: a guiding philosophy

d: a consciousness of moral importance
forge a conservation ethic

3ethics plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (such as rightness)
debated the ethics of human cloning

How "ethical" would it be for a pro-life politician, who has gotten elected on the promise of opposing what his/her supporters consider to be infanticide, to oppose a vote on RBG's replacement, after promising their supporters (and taking campaign money from them) that they would vote for Justices likely to refuse to expand Roe?  If the shoe were on the other foot, how ethical would it be for a Democrat to oppose a vote on a Democratic appointee if, say, Chuck Schumer were wanting to rush a vote in the wake of the death of a GOP Senator who was replaced by a placeholder Democrat likely to be defeated in a Special Election?  Would waiting for a permanent replacement be the "right thing" for Senators who have taken money and promised their supporters that they would do whatever necessary to advance the Feminist Agenda that RBG's body of work on the SCOTUS have certainly supported?

It is ethical for politicians to advance what they promise to advance.  Whether those policies themselves are "moral" are matters for debate, but they are matters in which there are often divisions without consensus.  It is moral for Mitch McConnell to block one nomination and push through another simply because he has the power to do so, as long as he's not taking bribes or other corrupt compensations to do so.  Now McConnell should have said this in 2016.  He should have made it clear that what he was doing was keeping faith with those who supported Republicans and that it is ethical to do so, without the drivel of "it's a Presidential year", etc.  He's earned the flak he's getting.  But let's stop the "ethical" issue.  These are the rules, and there are times when events grossly tip the balance of a decision in one direction or another.  It is unethical for an elected official to not take advantage of this.  Politics is not a debating society; it is the process by which public policy is determined.  It would be as unethical for Republicans to NOT seek a vote as it would be for Democrats to seek to not delay the vote.

If one is myopically focused on a single goal regardless of the perils of reckless actions along the way, sure any specific act along the way is justified in that sense.

But what value is a roe reversal decision that gets reversed itself every four/eight years like the Mexico City Policy after the latest packing.

At a certain point the whole process and legitimacy of the Constitution gets trampled underfoot. I just don't see this is a winning action for the cause of life, and more then likely it results in late term abortion get re-legalized by a packed court on the left, then Roe actually overturned.

[lfromnj]

I wouldn't call it "unethical".  I'm not sure that's the word to use if you wish to criticize this.

Definition of ethic

1ethics plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation

2a: a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values
the present-day materialistic ethic
an old-fashioned work ethic
—often used in plural but singular or plural in construction
an elaborate ethics
Christian ethics
bethics plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group
professional ethics

c: a guiding philosophy

d: a consciousness of moral importance
forge a conservation ethic

3ethics plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (such as rightness)
debated the ethics of human cloning

How "ethical" would it be for a pro-life politician, who has gotten elected on the promise of opposing what his/her supporters consider to be infanticide, to oppose a vote on RBG's replacement, after promising their supporters (and taking campaign money from them) that they would vote for Justices likely to refuse to expand Roe?  If the shoe were on the other foot, how ethical would it be for a Democrat to oppose a vote on a Democratic appointee if, say, Chuck Schumer were wanting to rush a vote in the wake of the death of a GOP Senator who was replaced by a placeholder Democrat likely to be defeated in a Special Election?  Would waiting for a permanent replacement be the "right thing" for Senators who have taken money and promised their supporters that they would do whatever necessary to advance the Feminist Agenda that RBG's body of work on the SCOTUS have certainly supported?

It is ethical for politicians to advance what they promise to advance.  Whether those policies themselves are "moral" are matters for debate, but they are matters in which there are often divisions without consensus.  It is moral for Mitch McConnell to block one nomination and push through another simply because he has the power to do so, as long as he's not taking bribes or other corrupt compensations to do so.  Now McConnell should have said this in 2016.  He should have made it clear that what he was doing was keeping faith with those who supported Republicans and that it is ethical to do so, without the drivel of "it's a Presidential year", etc.  He's earned the flak he's getting.  But let's stop the "ethical" issue.  These are the rules, and there are times when events grossly tip the balance of a decision in one direction or another.  It is unethical for an elected official to not take advantage of this.  Politics is not a debating society; it is the process by which public policy is determined.  It would be as unethical for Republicans to NOT seek a vote as it would be for Democrats to seek to not delay the vote.

If one is myopically focused on a single goal regardless of the perils of reckless actions along the way, sure any specific act along the way is justified in that sense.

But what value is a roe reversal decision that gets reversed itself every four/eight years like the Mexico City Policy after the latest packing.

At a certain point the whole process and legitimacy of the Constitution gets trampled underfoot. I just don't see this is a winning action for the cause of life, and more then likely it results in late term abortion get re-legalized by a packed court on the left, then Roe actually overturned.

I mean theoretically speaking that is still a "win" for the pro life movement as abortion being banned half the time is better than none of the time.

[You are responsible]

No.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I wouldn't call it "unethical".  I'm not sure that's the word to use if you wish to criticize this.

Definition of ethic

1ethics plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation

2a: a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values
the present-day materialistic ethic
an old-fashioned work ethic
—often used in plural but singular or plural in construction
an elaborate ethics
Christian ethics
bethics plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group
professional ethics

c: a guiding philosophy

d: a consciousness of moral importance
forge a conservation ethic

3ethics plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (such as rightness)
debated the ethics of human cloning

How "ethical" would it be for a pro-life politician, who has gotten elected on the promise of opposing what his/her supporters consider to be infanticide, to oppose a vote on RBG's replacement, after promising their supporters (and taking campaign money from them) that they would vote for Justices likely to refuse to expand Roe?  If the shoe were on the other foot, how ethical would it be for a Democrat to oppose a vote on a Democratic appointee if, say, Chuck Schumer were wanting to rush a vote in the wake of the death of a GOP Senator who was replaced by a placeholder Democrat likely to be defeated in a Special Election?  Would waiting for a permanent replacement be the "right thing" for Senators who have taken money and promised their supporters that they would do whatever necessary to advance the Feminist Agenda that RBG's body of work on the SCOTUS have certainly supported?

It is ethical for politicians to advance what they promise to advance.  Whether those policies themselves are "moral" are matters for debate, but they are matters in which there are often divisions without consensus.  It is moral for Mitch McConnell to block one nomination and push through another simply because he has the power to do so, as long as he's not taking bribes or other corrupt compensations to do so.  Now McConnell should have said this in 2016.  He should have made it clear that what he was doing was keeping faith with those who supported Republicans and that it is ethical to do so, without the drivel of "it's a Presidential year", etc.  He's earned the flak he's getting.  But let's stop the "ethical" issue.  These are the rules, and there are times when events grossly tip the balance of a decision in one direction or another.  It is unethical for an elected official to not take advantage of this.  Politics is not a debating society; it is the process by which public policy is determined.  It would be as unethical for Republicans to NOT seek a vote as it would be for Democrats to seek to not delay the vote.

If one is myopically focused on a single goal regardless of the perils of reckless actions along the way, sure any specific act along the way is justified in that sense.

But what value is a roe reversal decision that gets reversed itself every four/eight years like the Mexico City Policy after the latest packing.

At a certain point the whole process and legitimacy of the Constitution gets trampled underfoot. I just don't see this is a winning action for the cause of life, and more then likely it results in late term abortion get re-legalized by a packed court on the left, then Roe actually overturned.

I mean theoretically speaking that is still a "win" for the pro life movement as abortion being banned half the time is better than none of the time.

Not if conservatives on the Supreme Court decide to spend their political capital on striking down the ACA instead of Roe. If it looks like they can only do one of these things without triggering a serious Democratic backlash, I'm pretty confident about which way Kavanaugh and Roberts will fall.

[Alben Barkley]

Didn't even have to read what specifically you were referring to (though I had an idea) to answer "No."

[lfromnj]

I wouldn't call it "unethical".  I'm not sure that's the word to use if you wish to criticize this.

Definition of ethic

1ethics plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation

2a: a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values
the present-day materialistic ethic
an old-fashioned work ethic
—often used in plural but singular or plural in construction
an elaborate ethics
Christian ethics
bethics plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group
professional ethics

c: a guiding philosophy

d: a consciousness of moral importance
forge a conservation ethic

3ethics plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (such as rightness)
debated the ethics of human cloning

How "ethical" would it be for a pro-life politician, who has gotten elected on the promise of opposing what his/her supporters consider to be infanticide, to oppose a vote on RBG's replacement, after promising their supporters (and taking campaign money from them) that they would vote for Justices likely to refuse to expand Roe?  If the shoe were on the other foot, how ethical would it be for a Democrat to oppose a vote on a Democratic appointee if, say, Chuck Schumer were wanting to rush a vote in the wake of the death of a GOP Senator who was replaced by a placeholder Democrat likely to be defeated in a Special Election?  Would waiting for a permanent replacement be the "right thing" for Senators who have taken money and promised their supporters that they would do whatever necessary to advance the Feminist Agenda that RBG's body of work on the SCOTUS have certainly supported?

It is ethical for politicians to advance what they promise to advance.  Whether those policies themselves are "moral" are matters for debate, but they are matters in which there are often divisions without consensus.  It is moral for Mitch McConnell to block one nomination and push through another simply because he has the power to do so, as long as he's not taking bribes or other corrupt compensations to do so.  Now McConnell should have said this in 2016.  He should have made it clear that what he was doing was keeping faith with those who supported Republicans and that it is ethical to do so, without the drivel of "it's a Presidential year", etc.  He's earned the flak he's getting.  But let's stop the "ethical" issue.  These are the rules, and there are times when events grossly tip the balance of a decision in one direction or another.  It is unethical for an elected official to not take advantage of this.  Politics is not a debating society; it is the process by which public policy is determined.  It would be as unethical for Republicans to NOT seek a vote as it would be for Democrats to seek to not delay the vote.

If one is myopically focused on a single goal regardless of the perils of reckless actions along the way, sure any specific act along the way is justified in that sense.

But what value is a roe reversal decision that gets reversed itself every four/eight years like the Mexico City Policy after the latest packing.

At a certain point the whole process and legitimacy of the Constitution gets trampled underfoot. I just don't see this is a winning action for the cause of life, and more then likely it results in late term abortion get re-legalized by a packed court on the left, then Roe actually overturned.

I mean theoretically speaking that is still a "win" for the pro life movement as abortion being banned half the time is better than none of the time.

Not if conservatives on the Supreme Court decide to spend their political capital on striking down the ACA instead of Roe. If it looks like they can only do one of these things without triggering a serious Democratic backlash, I'm pretty confident about which way Kavanaugh and Roberts will fall.

Im talking in the scenario of a full pack where both parties just pack the court every few years whenever they get the trifecta.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I wouldn't call it "unethical".  I'm not sure that's the word to use if you wish to criticize this.

Definition of ethic

1ethics plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation

2a: a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values
the present-day materialistic ethic
an old-fashioned work ethic
—often used in plural but singular or plural in construction
an elaborate ethics
Christian ethics
bethics plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group
professional ethics

c: a guiding philosophy

d: a consciousness of moral importance
forge a conservation ethic

3ethics plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (such as rightness)
debated the ethics of human cloning

How "ethical" would it be for a pro-life politician, who has gotten elected on the promise of opposing what his/her supporters consider to be infanticide, to oppose a vote on RBG's replacement, after promising their supporters (and taking campaign money from them) that they would vote for Justices likely to refuse to expand Roe?  If the shoe were on the other foot, how ethical would it be for a Democrat to oppose a vote on a Democratic appointee if, say, Chuck Schumer were wanting to rush a vote in the wake of the death of a GOP Senator who was replaced by a placeholder Democrat likely to be defeated in a Special Election?  Would waiting for a permanent replacement be the "right thing" for Senators who have taken money and promised their supporters that they would do whatever necessary to advance the Feminist Agenda that RBG's body of work on the SCOTUS have certainly supported?

It is ethical for politicians to advance what they promise to advance.  Whether those policies themselves are "moral" are matters for debate, but they are matters in which there are often divisions without consensus.  It is moral for Mitch McConnell to block one nomination and push through another simply because he has the power to do so, as long as he's not taking bribes or other corrupt compensations to do so.  Now McConnell should have said this in 2016.  He should have made it clear that what he was doing was keeping faith with those who supported Republicans and that it is ethical to do so, without the drivel of "it's a Presidential year", etc.  He's earned the flak he's getting.  But let's stop the "ethical" issue.  These are the rules, and there are times when events grossly tip the balance of a decision in one direction or another.  It is unethical for an elected official to not take advantage of this.  Politics is not a debating society; it is the process by which public policy is determined.  It would be as unethical for Republicans to NOT seek a vote as it would be for Democrats to seek to not delay the vote.

If one is myopically focused on a single goal regardless of the perils of reckless actions along the way, sure any specific act along the way is justified in that sense.

But what value is a roe reversal decision that gets reversed itself every four/eight years like the Mexico City Policy after the latest packing.

At a certain point the whole process and legitimacy of the Constitution gets trampled underfoot. I just don't see this is a winning action for the cause of life, and more then likely it results in late term abortion get re-legalized by a packed court on the left, then Roe actually overturned.

I mean theoretically speaking that is still a "win" for the pro life movement as abortion being banned half the time is better than none of the time.

Not if conservatives on the Supreme Court decide to spend their political capital on striking down the ACA instead of Roe. If it looks like they can only do one of these things without triggering a serious Democratic backlash, I'm pretty confident about which way Kavanaugh and Roberts will fall.

Im talking in the scenario of a full pack where both parties just pack the court every few years whenever they get the trifecta.

Even in that scenario, the court would have somewhat limited political capital. Too much legislating from the bench could provoke a backlash against the party supporting the justices who the court was packed in favour of. If it was particularly extreme legislation coming from the bench like some kind of Hungary-tier authoritarianism, the stability of the entire political system could also be threatened.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I wouldn't call it "unethical".  I'm not sure that's the word to use if you wish to criticize this.

Definition of ethic

1ethics plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation

2a: a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values
the present-day materialistic ethic
an old-fashioned work ethic
—often used in plural but singular or plural in construction
an elaborate ethics
Christian ethics
bethics plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group
professional ethics

c: a guiding philosophy

d: a consciousness of moral importance
forge a conservation ethic

3ethics plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (such as rightness)
debated the ethics of human cloning

How "ethical" would it be for a pro-life politician, who has gotten elected on the promise of opposing what his/her supporters consider to be infanticide, to oppose a vote on RBG's replacement, after promising their supporters (and taking campaign money from them) that they would vote for Justices likely to refuse to expand Roe?  If the shoe were on the other foot, how ethical would it be for a Democrat to oppose a vote on a Democratic appointee if, say, Chuck Schumer were wanting to rush a vote in the wake of the death of a GOP Senator who was replaced by a placeholder Democrat likely to be defeated in a Special Election?  Would waiting for a permanent replacement be the "right thing" for Senators who have taken money and promised their supporters that they would do whatever necessary to advance the Feminist Agenda that RBG's body of work on the SCOTUS have certainly supported?

It is ethical for politicians to advance what they promise to advance.  Whether those policies themselves are "moral" are matters for debate, but they are matters in which there are often divisions without consensus.  It is moral for Mitch McConnell to block one nomination and push through another simply because he has the power to do so, as long as he's not taking bribes or other corrupt compensations to do so.  Now McConnell should have said this in 2016.  He should have made it clear that what he was doing was keeping faith with those who supported Republicans and that it is ethical to do so, without the drivel of "it's a Presidential year", etc.  He's earned the flak he's getting.  But let's stop the "ethical" issue.  These are the rules, and there are times when events grossly tip the balance of a decision in one direction or another.  It is unethical for an elected official to not take advantage of this.  Politics is not a debating society; it is the process by which public policy is determined.  It would be as unethical for Republicans to NOT seek a vote as it would be for Democrats to seek to not delay the vote.

If one is myopically focused on a single goal regardless of the perils of reckless actions along the way, sure any specific act along the way is justified in that sense.

But what value is a roe reversal decision that gets reversed itself every four/eight years like the Mexico City Policy after the latest packing.

At a certain point the whole process and legitimacy of the Constitution gets trampled underfoot. I just don't see this is a winning action for the cause of life, and more then likely it results in late term abortion get re-legalized by a packed court on the left, then Roe actually overturned.

I mean theoretically speaking that is still a "win" for the pro life movement as abortion being banned half the time is better than none of the time.

Is it though if late term and partial birth abortion is legal the other half?