Republican Hypocrisy category archive
David discusses the “cartoonish level” of projection in the Trumposphere.
Sam talks with Digby about Republican attempts to smear Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.
Read Digby’s article.
The Las Vegas Sun’s Brian Greenspun opines. A snippet:
There was an argument in the Court of Appeals — that’s right beneath the Supreme Court of the United States — during which an issue arose challenging the concept that no man is above the law, something we Americans inherited and have embraced from Mother England that was embodied in the Magna Carta! Yes, that idea is what we call “age-old.”
A judge asked President Trump’s lawyer whether he was suggesting that Trump could actually shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and, because he is the president, actually get away with murder. To which the lawyer answered, “yes.” As long as he was our president!
And he was deadly serious.
James Conaway explores the reasons behind the Trump administration’s decision to relocate senior Bureau of Land Management officials to Grand Junction, Colorado. The administration’s rationale argues that the officials need to be closer to the land that they manage. Conaway is skeptical.
“This administration just doesn’t want us handy to [a] Congress that often needs clarification of laws and advice in drafting and voting for or against new ones,” according to a federal employee who works closely with BLM staffers on any of the same issues and was understandably reluctant to be named. “Getting us out of Washington is a way to limit real professional advice going to elected officials by isolating us in the wide open and mostly empty spaces.” He pointed out that the same things is happening in the Agricultural Department, “with more to come.”
At Above the Law, Tyler Broker explains that self-avowed Supreme Court “originalists” aren’t. A snippet:
Yet, when the most consequential cases involving some of our most fundamental liberties from the last couple of years are examined, entirely missing from the Court’s and often from the most prominent originalists’ analysis is an intellectual support based on original public meaning.
Instead, what has dominated the Court’s most consequential opinions are modern-based (politically conservative) value judgments that can stand in direct conflict with the lawful original intent of Congress.
Follow the link for the exhibits in his case.
UNC Law Professor Joseph Kennedy translates from the Latin. A snippet:
“Quid pro quo” is Latin for “one thing for another.” Trump has argued that he did nothing wrong during his phone call with the president of Ukraine last summer because there was no quid pro quo, no explicit request of continued aid for Ukraine for an investigation of Joe Biden, his leading opponent in the next election. A quid pro quo is not essential to a crime or abuse of power, but the president is wrong in any event. No “magic words” are required for a quid pro quo to take place.
At the Las Vegas Sun, Peter Wehner tries to understand why Republicans, who once styled themselves as the party of rectitude, so willingly defend and support Donald Trump, for whom rectitude is a unknown concept. Here’s a bit; follow the link th read the rest.
All of this is tied to the psychology of accommodation. As a conservative-leaning clinical psychologist I know explained to me, when new experiences don’t fit into an existing schema — Trump becoming the leader of the party that insisted on the necessity of good character in the Oval Office when Bill Clinton was president, for example — cognitive accommodation occurs.
When the accommodation involves compromising one’s sense of integrity, the tensions are reduced when others join in the effort. This creates a powerful sense of cohesion, harmony and groupthink. The greater the compromise, the more fierce the justification for it — and the greater the need to denounce those who call them out for their compromise.