Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
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.
|
The way you've defined the question sounds like something out of a late-night bullshit session in the freshman year of college, and I have to agree that your sort of jaded cynicism is always a good response in such conversations. There are no absolutes here. The only reason to respect process is that doing so serves a larger end. We all agree that if the police think someone in NYC is about to set off a dirty bomb, they should not bother to go get a warrant before they do something about it. So what if decades of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence suggests otherwise?
Quote:
|
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.
|
Of course filibusters are legal. Your guys want to change that. They generally haven't been used on judges, but this is only because the GOP has gotten rid of the other procedures Senators could use to block nominees. So the larger point is that by referring just to filibusters, and not to the other procedural changes re judicial nominations, you are asking an unfair (or unprincipled) question. I said this in my last post, and though you decided to ignore it, it is still true.
Quote:
|
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,...
|
No, dumbass, I said that changing the map may "more accurately represent" party affiliation but less accurately represent other important things. Cattle ranchers may want to be represented by a cattle rancher, and not by a Dallas banker, and so on. I've said this twice, and you are just not bothering to read my posts. You may not be reading this one, either. Here, I'll call you Lizard Breath, and see if you respond to it in your next post. Maybe that will work. Your problem may just be that you cannot conceive of other "wishes" that people might have, apart from voting Republican. Which ties back nicely to this conversation about your cynicism and apparent lack of principal.
Quote:
|
....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.
|
I think that I said that it is divisive, not that it is uncivil, although it does appear to have been uncivil. That was RT's point, I think. It's divisive because it's a zero sum game, with no prospect of social benefit.
