• PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.comOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • NightLily@lemmy.basedcount.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • TechyDad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        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!

        • mriguy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s much simpler than that. Anything is fine as long as the party doing it STARTS with the letter R.

    • logicbomb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • argo_yamato@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • HopeOfTheGunblade@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.