"Any sentient human being of course realizes that Trump's stunt was actually not very clever. This type of challenge simply requires posing a seemingly rhetorical question that demands more than a one-word response. You can't answer "yes" or "no," because the question calls for more. You can't either stand up and cheer or sit quietly. You must explain."
"To understand this, put the shoe on a Republican foot: "If you agree with this statement, Republicans, then stand up and show your support: The first duty of the Supreme Court is to uphold the United States Constitution, even against a president's attempt to impose illegal tariffs." Hmmm. That requires more than either standing up and cheering or remaining seated."
"So, too, Democrats might have wanted to talk about whether it's the first duty of the government to protect American citizens against illegal aliens, even if that means sending masked troops into American cities and occasionally killing innocent American citizens."
During his State of the Union address, Trump challenged Democrats to stand if they agreed that protecting American citizens should take priority over protecting illegal aliens. Democrats remained seated, which Stephen Miller characterized as disqualifying the entire Democratic Party from government service. However, the challenge was fundamentally flawed because it posed a complex policy question that demanded explanation rather than a simple standing ovation or silence. The statement conflates border security with government priorities in ways that require context and discussion. Similar rhetorical traps could be posed to Republicans on issues like constitutional interpretation and tariffs, demonstrating how such binary challenges fail to capture legitimate policy disagreements.
Read at Above the Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]