Republican Hypocrisy category archive
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.
E. J. Dionne wonders marvels Trump keeps getting away with stuff and notes that he has accomplices.
When Republicans held Congress during President Barack Obama’s administration, it seemed that a missing box of staples might have been enough to launch 100 subpoenas and months of hearings. Now, the GOP is going along with a president whose lawyers — in a court-filing trying to block the Manhattan district attorney from getting Trump’s tax returns — are asserting that “a sitting President of the United States is not ‘subject to the criminal process’ while he is in office.” It is a sweeping and astonishing assertion that a president is above the law as long as he sits in the White House, no matter which level of government might be investigating him.
Paul Krugman looks for the motives behind Donald Trump’s war on California. A snippet:
You see, modern California — once a hotbed of conservatism — has become a very liberal, very Democratic state, in part thanks to rapidly rising Hispanic and Asian populations. And since the early years of this decade, when Democrats won first the governorship, then a supermajority in the state Legislature, liberals have been in a position to pursue their agenda, raising taxes on high incomes and increasing social spending.
Conservatives confidently predicted disaster, declaring that the state was committing “economic suicide.” You might think that the failure of that disaster to materialize, especially combined with the way California has outperformed states like Kansas and North Carolina that turned hard right while it was turning left, might induce them to reconsider their worldview. That is, you might think that if you haven’t been paying any attention to the right-wing mindset.
Martin Longman wonders whether the North Carolina Republican Party presages the future of the national Republican Party.
Facing South takes a deep dive into North Carolina’s gerrymandering and, in particular, how it has affected judicial elections. It seems that North Carolina Republicans have decided that, if you can’t win ’em, gerrymander ’em.
North Carolina legislators’ desire to change the courts and judicial elections coincided with their repeated losses in voting rights cases, including lawsuits over gerrymandering at all levels of government. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld rulings that North Carolina’s election districts for both Congress and the state legislature were racially gerrymandered.
The effort to redraw judicial election districts began in the spring of 2017, when (Former state Rep. Justin–ed.) Burr introduced a plan to quickly redraw districts for judges and prosecutors around the state. An early map would have placed more than half of the state’s black district court judges in a district with another incumbent, according to NC Policy Watch.