2 ms·
> I suspect that bias is the intent for stacking the court to begin with, and that the actual constitutional validity of the decision isn't meant to matter. I
by fennecfoxen 6y ago
> I suspect that bias is the intent for stacking the court to begin with, and that the actual constitutional validity of the decision isn't meant to matter.
I regret that your post has derailed this conversation into a sectarian display of othering, aversion, and moralization. No further productive exchanges on the topic will be found here.
I will instead note that when we treat our ideological opponents as respectable people who are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time (so to speak) it is not because we expect that our enemies will reap the benefits of this respect. It is for our own sake that we ought do this.
- krapp 6y agoI never claimed anyone was incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, merely that a political party acts with political motives. That the Republican Party has sought the repeal of Roe V. Wade since the decision was made, and that the primary impetus behind that is religious, rather than legalistic, is so obvious that it should be banal. They literally campaign on getting justices in to repeal Roe V. Wade. Yet you've suddenly turned defensive and accused me of moralizing and condescending simply by mentioning it. It probably is best to table this. It's futile to even try to have a decent political conversation here anyway.