Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
A principled discussion about the processes involved in judicial appointments would have to take account of the various ways the members of the Senate, including members of the minority, could block or have a say in judicial appointments, a process that has been changed in recent years by Republicans. It is no secret that the GOP has been on a campaign to remake the judiciary in a Federalist image. If you ask a question about filibusters, while ignoring the rest of this, you are stacking the deck. If the question is, would I prefer the way judicial nominations were traditionally handled to where we are now, the answer is, absolutely. Just as I feel about the TX redistricting.
That's how a principled discussion would unfold. You, clearly, are not interested in these principles, but only in the reductionist "you only like the results you like" argument. You are, at the least, consistent.
|
Nice head fake.
No, wait, it's not a nice head fake when you're spotted. Never mind.
The subject at issue, as you know, is not the substantive argument over the filibusters, not the redistricting of Texas. It's your assertion that you are above chosing when to use an integrity-of-the-process argument and when to use a substantive-fairness-of-results argument depending on which best serves your desires.
You are here defending the legality and correctness of the filibusters, making a "but-you-guys-do-it-too-and-first" argument to support yourself, and adding in that your protection of the balance of the judiciary merits such a deviation from past trends. In short, a substantive-fairness-of-the-results argument. An integrity-of-the-process argument would not work for you here, as this round of filibusters represents a large move away from past trends and away from a civil process of governance.
In Texas, you do the opposite - you avoid speaking of the point that the new map results in a more accurate representation of the wishes of the people, in a one-person-one-vote sense, and argue instead that it is uncivil and a huge change from the only-every-ten-years process. So, here, as it suits your desired result, you make the integrity-of-the-process argument.
