You can publish different points of view without endorsing them. This piece is a bad, impractical idea, but its gradualism is less bad than court-packing. And you missed the part where it explicitly advances this argument as a reason to persuade people not to vote for Trump. https://twitter.com/JoshuaMZeitz/status/1315287222082506752 …
I'm not arguing his proposal is good, the evidence of which is that I said in the tweet it was bad.
-
-
But the real problem is not when you’re caught, as here, it’s that you don’t acknowledge that manipulating the courts is common theory and practice on the right. You don’t write arguments like serious polemicists; you write complaints from the POV of your “client.”
-
Serious polemicists accurately represents the arguments of their interlocutors, so they can accurately rebut them. Hey—you’re a “classical liberal”, that just Mill. You, like a complainant, choose only tendentious argument, unconvincing to anybody but your buddies.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.