So, when did you stop beating your wife ? ...

[dogtag]

The unanswerable question, the kind of question the
democrats like to ask people who are destined to gain a
power they don't want them to have as they fear it might
interfere with their long term agenda.
That one won't work of course as it's just a joke, but there's
always the sex assault charge - and best if it's from way back,
so it will be hard to prove but also hard to dismiss, exactly
as in this case against Judge Kavanaugh.
It's a lethal weapon as long as it's not overused, but it will be,
maybe already has. Remember Judge Roy Moore ? They got
rid of him with a similar fake charge of sexual assault.

[Vern Humphrey]

That's starting to look like the Democrats' modus operandi. Hopefully, they've already overused it, and it will become less and less dangerous as time goes by.

[Sandpebble]

Well ya know guys....

when the Republican side of the fracas decided to blockade Obama's nominee with the nuclear option and refuse to attend a hearing ....

I would have thought a "gloves are off " scenario was a given .... we are surprised by this ?

[S.A. Boggs]

Well ya know guys....

when the Republican side of the fracas decided to blockade Obama's nominee with the nuclear option and refuse to attend a hearing ....

I would have thought a "gloves are off " scenario was a given .... we are surprised by this ?

Nothing the left does is a surprise, just a hit job to the Republic.
Sam

[togor]

Nothing the left does is a surprise, just a hit job to the Republic.
Sam

As a rule if Sam starts talking about the Republic (capital-R), it means someone else got a good point in. Everyone knows that the GOP puts a high priority on keeping the unelected Federal judges on their side of the issues, in part because many of these judges drift left over time, as experience with real-life cases piles up. So yes the gloves are off and the party that left many Federal benches sitting empty (not just the Supreme Court) under Obama has no high moral gripe about delays, only the low gripe of street combat when the opponent gets in a blow.

[bruce]

Re: Opponent, etc. True. This is a bar fight. There are no rules. Use a chair. Use a table leg. Pull a razor out of your shoe or a butcher knife out of you boot. All that matters is winning. Hard reality, but that's the way it is given that the SCOTUS has been given power beyond the COTUS to weigh and decide what actions of the Executive and Legislative branches is or is not acceptable, all based on the considered opinion of the members of the SCOTUS. Oddly, beyond the mere opinion of a now long dead justice of the SCOTUS, no where in the COTUS does it privilege the SCOTUS above the other "co-equal" branches of our government. So, we now have the current bruhaha that surrounds the filling of vacancies on the federal judiciary and the SCOTUS. This fight is on simply because left-wing liberals have for so long depended upon the federal judiciary and the SCOTUS to advance their social agenda. As long as they were winning ... all was fine. Now that the worm has turned, now that they are loosing SC decisions, a reality that developed (shock!!!) before Kennedy resigned, now all of a sudden the current nominee for appointment to the SCOTUS must be acceptable to the left-wing liberals to be qualified. Do tell! Wonder, ... why are left-wing liberals not expected to handle this nominee? Perhaps the same way they expected Republicans and Conservatives to handle the former administrations nomination of a "wise latina" to serve a lifetime appointment on the SCOTUS. Amazing isn't it! What was good for the goose is now ... good for the gander. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.

[togor]

Re: Opponent, etc. True. This is a bar fight. There are no rules. Use a chair. Use a table leg. Pull a razor out of your shoe or a butcher knife out of you boot. All that matters is winning.

Speaking as a commentator on the times or is this your view from the Sunday pulpit? If your interpretation of the New Testament is that the ends justify the means in this world then I would suggest that you'd be doing the Faith a service to get into a different line of work.

[clintonhater]

If your interpretation of the New Testament is that the ends justify the means in this world...

Whether the ends justify the means always depends on what ends & what means, & to pretend otherwise is childishly simple-minded. No doubt you'd say that the end of defeating Hitler justified the means of making an alliance with a greater mass-murderer, Stalin. Or that wiping out the civilian populations of Hiroshima & Nagasaki was justified to prevent US casualties during an invasion. Or that Lincoln's embargo on shipments of either to the Confederacy was justified if it made the Rebels throw in the towel more quickly.

What about brazenly violating the laws & territorial integrity of a quasi-ally, Pakistan, to capture Bin Laden? Did that end justify the illegal means used to obtain it?

[Vern Humphrey]

PLEASE! Do NOT feed the trolls.

[clintonhater]

PLEASE! Do NOT feed the trolls.

Yes, but one more choice example I've got to throw in to stimulate Togor's Naziphobia. How 'bout the flagrantly illegal capture of Adolf Eichmann? Compounded, afterwards, by violating Israel's own law against capital punishment in order to hang him?

[Roadkingtrax]

Don't feed the resident Klansmen.

[togor]

Yes, but one more choice example I've got to throw in to stimulate Togor's Naziphobia. How 'bout the flagrantly illegal capture of Adolf Eichmann? Compounded, afterwards, by violating Israel's own law against capital punishment in order to hang him?

It's actually not a hard question to answer! To the amoral person, the ends matter, the means are immaterial. Thus it is a simple matter to say that the ends justify the means. To the moral person, there is a tension between ends and means, between competing values, along the lines of the examples that you describe.

One can then judge the depth or quality of the morality in a person, or belief system, by the ease or lack thereof with which they navigate these waters. The Muslim jihadis for example rape and murder and kill innocents with hardly a moment's hesitation, and we rightly judge their morality as depraved. Whereas the Christianity with which most of us are familiar puts a high emphasis on mercy and forgiveness and redemption, all impulses which make us stop and reflect on the means we choose to achieve an end.

So yeah, if anyone in a Christian pulpit is so focused on ends to the exclusion of all else (not saying this is Bruce), then I feel confident in saying that they're doing it wrong.

Meanwhile Vern every time you roll out the troll line all you do is show me how little game you have left.

[Vern Humphrey]

Don't feed the trolls.

[barretcreek]

There is a piece in The Federalist about DiDi playing this one just right; either the GOP caves on the investigation or risks alienating white suburban college educated females. I'm not sure about that. Terry Moran of LSM credentials was on and said the Perfesser has made a very serious mistake by attempting to dictate to the Senate the rules of how they are going to examine her charges. Sam and Sid may take exception to what I say; she is an academic in a field which is very subjective, there are multiple right answers to every question, and so she thinks that merely by making an accusation and stating "I stand by my charges" that's it. Senate is going to want time, date and GPS coordinates of this alleged incident. Plus the GOP is going to go after the Dems over Keith Ellison's battered girlfriend and compare the two. Dr. Play Both Sides Against the Middle is going to have to make a credible presentation Monday or eat her accusation w/o any sugar.

[togor]

Personally I'm not that worked up one way or the other about this one for the simple reason that there is a list of 100 other Kavanaughs. If this one crashes and burns in confirmation, it's literally next man up. Sure it boogers up the news cycle for a few days or weeks, but the end is not in doubt.