The ends don't justify the means

[Dirty Socialist]

Remember that the overturning of Roe wouldn’t have happened if McCoonnell hadn’t blocked Obama’s legit bid to appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

[The Magistrate]

1. Whose Ends, Sir?

[Dirty Socialist]

3. Well,

Even if the ends are unjustifiable as well

[The Magistrate]

6. So If The End Is Just, Sir?

Do you forgo gaining it by not using a proper tool for its achievement?

[Dirty Socialist]

7. ???

[The Magistrate]

9. As Near As I Can Follow, Sir

You began by saying the end does not justify the means, and illustrated with some skullduggery by McConnell.

You then said this applied even if the end was unjustifiable. It seems obvious to me no means to an unjust end is acceptable, the question arises only where an end is just, and unclean means seem needed for its attainment.

What is also obvious is that an end just in my lights may be unjust in the view of another. I consider this readily solved, by maintaining we are right and they are wrong. It has the virtues of both succinctness and accuracy.

I do consider it possible unclean means may be incapable of securing in full some particular just end.

[Dirty Socialist]

10. The conservatives think the ends are correct

Even if the ends are flawed. That’s what I was getting at. It’s an aside.

[The Magistrate]

11. And They Are Wrong, Sir

People need to stop treating partisanship as something inherently flawed and disreputable. Where ends conflict, there is no other guide to one's own actions, and when one party to a conflict recognizes this and the other does not, success of the former is assured.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

2. Actually we'd have also needed RBG to retire under Obama so he could name the replacement

And that also assumes Moscow Mitch didn't pull the same crap he did with Scalia's spot.

It was 6-3, not 5-4.

[Dirty Socialist]

4. I heard it was 5-4

[Hugh_Lebowski]

5. Maybe the first articles I saw were wrong, if so, my bad (nt)

[haele]

12. Dobbs was 6-3. Overturning Roe was 5-4.

Roberts had no problems with states putting restrictions on access to abortion, he just hesitated on overturning Roe in the judgement concerning Dobbs.

Haele

[Johnny2X2X]

8. Correct

But when Mitch did that, the Dems should have shut the entire country down! Everything! You don't give up the Supreme Court to not rock the boat. They stole the court and now there's no going back. Dems didn't want to fight, or some thought Hillary would just win anyway.

[inthewind21]

13. Did they really

Steal it? Or were they allowed to walk away with it without consequence? It's like the filibuster now. They are all so afraid about "what if the republicans gain control and we can't filibuster?" That's the most asinine excuse ever. Let's let the republicans block EVERYTHING now using the filibuster so we can accomplish nothing. Then, when we lose the house and senate (BECAUSE we accomplished nothing) we'll just filibuster the republicans. Because McConnell would never get rid of it right?