In comparison, Reyes said, Trump needs only to provide Congress with 30 days’ notice and a written explanation to remove an inspector general.
She cites the legal procedure in her comments declining the motion. If that’s not an acknowledgement of the illegality of what happened instead, what is?
So putting a stop, even temporarily, to plainly illegal actions by government official(s) is unreasonable if the illegal actions aren’t illegal enough? And “illegal enough” doesn’t include “taking one of the biggest ever steps to remove one of the largest barriers to corruption”
And that’s… Reasonable?
This isn’t the same as The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
Unless you’re talking about a version of the story where there really were wolves every time he cried wolf and nobody believed him until the wolves were eating people.
Still not a perfect analogy but much closer.
I’m sure it doesn’t apply to only the 1st amendment! They’ll apply it to all the other amendments too (unless they don’t want to)
So what they’re saying is that times have changed and things that used to be considered rights guaranteed by the Constitution need to change with the times.
I’m sure this logic can be applied to other rights as well, as long as those rights aren’t laid out in any amendments that come after 1 and before 3.
I’m not claiming otherwise, so I’m not sure what your point is
False dichotomy. Sliding further into fascism was something we could have avoided while also recognizing the administration’s failure to address the genocide for the very real moral & ethical dilema that it is and give that issue the weight it truly deserves.
I like to be more nuanced with ideas like this, because I like to acknowledge the widespread voter disenfranchisement that happens in our country.
If a person could have voted and didn’t, then I agree; they made an active choice and that counts.
If a person is eligible to vote but can’t–maybe their voter registration was wrongfully purged, or they genuinely can’t afford to take time off work, or something else valid I dunno–then that’s not an active choice to not vote and I don’t think “not voting is voting” can be applied.