Roe vs Wade vs SCOTUS legitimacy

[CJD]

(05-03-2022, 09:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, sorry, it doesn't work that way.  For you to be outraged about McConnell denying Garland his seat you have to disagree with his argument for doing so.  If you do, which you do, then you have to, merely by dint of logical consistency, have to agree that appointing Barrett when RBG died was the correct and proper way to do things.  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say he was wrong one time and wrong the other, they are mutually exclusive options.  Well, I should say you absolutely can, as long as you don't mind being a complete hypocrite, just like Mitch.  Hence, based solely on logic, the accusation of a "stolen seat" can only encompass one position, not two.

This video may be a little too radical left for you, but I think it has a really interesting introduction about this whole "you can't say they were wrong and then try to do it too" argument and I'd like to know what your thoughts on it are (you can stop after 6 minutes if you don't want to watch the rest. although the rest of the video does come back to this concept of "values neutral governance" quite a bit, so it may be worth the whole watch).

https://youtu.be/MAbab8aP4_A