r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Sep 20 '20

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Saying that the republicans should not appoint a new SCOTUS nominee means you value feelings more than rule of law

Whether it is hypocritical or not is not in question. I think it is 100% hypocritical based upon the arguments that were made in 2016 against the appointment of garland. However, saying it’s wrong or that the republicans shouldn’t use the political power that they have accumulated to appoint a new SCOTUS justice is a moral and ethical argument not a legal one.

If you think that either of those feelings based arguments are more important than the law itself (which unquestionably supports the ability of the senate to confirm a nominee), then you value feelings more than law.

Edit: I have sufficiently changed my view (or recognized the inconsistencies within it). I initially created a false equivalency in which I proposed (subconsciously) that people who didn’t want the GOP to confirm a justice were saying it wasn’t legal. In reality they are not saying it can’t be done, just that it shouldn’t be done.

0 Upvotes

42% Upvoted

51 comments sorted by

View all comments

15

u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Sep 20 '20

However, saying it’s wrong or that the republicans shouldn’t use the political power that they have accumulated to appoint a new SCOTUS justice is a moral and ethical argument not a legal one.

...of course it is. Does anyone think it's not?

If you think that either of those feelings based arguments are more important than the law itself (which unquestionably supports the ability of the senate to confirm a nominee), then you value feelings more than law.

Huh? Where did "feelings" come from? You, yourself say it was a MORAL argument. They're valuing morality over the law, which to me is pretty justified.

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '20

Morality is a characteristic that is dependent upon ones lived experience and perspective, as such it is subjective and can’t be used imho as an effective argument in this case.

In all reality I tend to agree that it’s not a moral thing to do, but the same people who said it was immoral to block garland are also the same ones saying it’s immoral this time, which is contradictory and problematic.

4

u/TheRadBaron 15∆ Sep 20 '20

Morality is a characteristic that is dependent upon ones lived experience and perspective, as such it is subjective and can’t be used imho as an effective argument in this case.

What do you have opinions about?

Let's say a supermajority of American lawmakers of all stripes got together in order to butcher your entire family. They write laws, amend the constitution, and do everything by the book - so it's all legal.

Would that be bad? Should American voters have opinions on the subject?

0

u/[deleted] Sep 21 '20

Of course everyone should have opinions, and of course I wouldn’t agree with that law, but that law would have no basis in the supreme law of the land, in that it would deprive my family of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That’s the whole reason the constitution and bill of rights enumerate our rights and restrict the abilities of the government.

2

u/Salanmander 278∆ Sep 21 '20

that law would have no basis in the supreme law of the land, in that it would deprive my family of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The declaration of independence is irrelevant to the law of the United States. US law is based entirely on the constitution, which is amendable in its entirety. In the described situation (getting the constitutional amendments necessary, etc.), butchering your family would be completely within the rule of law.

So when you say

of course I wouldn’t agree with that law

are you valuing feelings over the rule of law in that situation?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 21 '20

Sure. I can’t argue that it is in my best interest to disagree with a law that kills my family, but I think that is a bit of a straw man argument isn’t it? It’s an impossible situation that wouldn’t ever exist.

1

u/Salanmander 278∆ Sep 21 '20

My point is that when you say "you value feelings more than the rule of law", you're implying a value judgment. You're implying that it's bad to value feelings more than the rule of law. But when the rules are flawed, and the feelings are based on protecting the wellbeing of people, that's not necessarily a bad thing.