4 ms·

The National Review became dishonest propaganda some time ago. They are going back 150 years to find a precedent and ignoring many more recent precedents. htt

The National Review became dishonest propaganda some time ago. They are going back 150 years to find a precedent and ignoring many more recent precedents. https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-i...

rayiner 6y ago
Explain to me what’s “dishonest propaganda” about the National Review article? 1) Going back to the 1800s is routine in the legal world to understand what is accepted practice in our system. After all, the relevant rules haven’t changed since 1789. Aren’t examples from people who created this system particularly relevant to understanding how it’s supposed to work? 2) The SCOTUSblog article goes through the exact same examples as the National Review article for the 20th century. The only difference is that the National Review article looks at whether different parties control the Presidency/Senate. What is “propaganda” about that? The Senate and Presidency are political branches that are supposed to be at odds, potentially. Is there any reason to assert that this political rivalry shouldn’t extend to Supreme Court appointments? Is it “propaganda” to even posit the idea?
- dbingham 6y ago
  The article I posted also looked at what parties controlled the Senate and Presidency and quoted more recent precedents where the parties were split, and the president got to appoint. Moreover, stopping a vote entirely? That's unprecedented. Had there been a vote on Garland, he almost certainly would have been appointed. Many of the moderate Republicans in the senate, facing elections, would not have been able to justify voting him down to their constituents. For the National Review to leave those pieces out is dishonest. I'm also not just referring to that article. The National Review has been dishonest propaganda for a while, making dishonest arguments that manipulate the facts (usually by omission or careful selections as here, but occasionally outright lying) to justify the actions of what has become a fascist party.
claudeganon 6y ago
The National Review has been nothing short of reactionary propaganda from its outset. They vehemently opposed the Civil Rights Movement in its era, including running unsigned editorials with such lovely sentiments as “In the Deep South the Negroes are, by comparison with the Whites, retarded” https://www.mediamatters.org/national-review/national-reviews-ugly-civil-rights-history https://www.mediamatters.org/national-review/national-review...
- rayiner 6y ago
  Democrats were literally the party of segregation when Buckley wrote that (there would have been no New Deal coalition without the support of segregationists). He was vastly out of step with Republicans at the time, and he did a 180 by 1965, the year after LBJ flipped the Democratic Party on the civil rights act. It’s a shameful period of American history, but unless you’re going to stop voting Democrat over what some Democrats said in 1957...
  - claudeganon 6y ago
    I’m not a Democrat and we weren’t talking about voting anyway. And these are the kind of sentiments Buckley continued on with after 1965, so please spare me the “different times”’pleading: > In a 1986 New York Times op-ed (3/18/86), Buckley urged that ‘everyone detected with AIDS should be tattooed in the upper forearm, to protect common-needle users, and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of other homosexuals.” https://fair.org/home/william-f-buckley-rest-in-praise/ https://fair.org/home/william-f-buckley-rest-in-praise/

rayiner 6y ago

Explain to me what’s “dishonest propaganda” about the National Review article? 1) Going back to the 1800s is routine in the legal world to understand what is accepted practice in our system. After all, the relevant rules haven’t changed since 1789. Aren’t examples from people who created this system particularly relevant to understanding how it’s supposed to work? 2) The SCOTUSblog article goes through the exact same examples as the National Review article for the 20th century. The only difference is that the National Review article looks at whether different parties control the Presidency/Senate. What is “propaganda” about that? The Senate and Presidency are political branches that are supposed to be at odds, potentially. Is there any reason to assert that this political rivalry shouldn’t extend to Supreme Court appointments? Is it “propaganda” to even posit the idea?

dbingham 6y ago
The article I posted also looked at what parties controlled the Senate and Presidency and quoted more recent precedents where the parties were split, and the president got to appoint. Moreover, stopping a vote entirely? That's unprecedented. Had there been a vote on Garland, he almost certainly would have been appointed. Many of the moderate Republicans in the senate, facing elections, would not have been able to justify voting him down to their constituents. For the National Review to leave those pieces out is dishonest. I'm also not just referring to that article. The National Review has been dishonest propaganda for a while, making dishonest arguments that manipulate the facts (usually by omission or careful selections as here, but occasionally outright lying) to justify the actions of what has become a fascist party.

claudeganon 6y ago

The National Review has been nothing short of reactionary propaganda from its outset. They vehemently opposed the Civil Rights Movement in its era, including running unsigned editorials with such lovely sentiments as “In the Deep South the Negroes are, by comparison with the Whites, retarded” https://www.mediamatters.org/national-review/national-reviews-ugly-civil-rights-history https://www.mediamatters.org/national-review/national-review...

rayiner 6y ago
Democrats were literally the party of segregation when Buckley wrote that (there would have been no New Deal coalition without the support of segregationists). He was vastly out of step with Republicans at the time, and he did a 180 by 1965, the year after LBJ flipped the Democratic Party on the civil rights act. It’s a shameful period of American history, but unless you’re going to stop voting Democrat over what some Democrats said in 1957...
- claudeganon 6y ago
  I’m not a Democrat and we weren’t talking about voting anyway. And these are the kind of sentiments Buckley continued on with after 1965, so please spare me the “different times”’pleading: > In a 1986 New York Times op-ed (3/18/86), Buckley urged that ‘everyone detected with AIDS should be tattooed in the upper forearm, to protect common-needle users, and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of other homosexuals.” https://fair.org/home/william-f-buckley-rest-in-praise/ https://fair.org/home/william-f-buckley-rest-in-praise/