Active Ethics Alarms reader/commenter Steve Witherspoon tracked down the transcript on Senator Schumer’s remarks in response to Mitch McConnell’s accurate attack on the senate Minority Leader’s unconscionable comments at the Supreme Court, thuggishly threatening Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh over decisions they haven’t made yet.

I’ll interlineate the text—I’m sorry it’s all in caps, but that’s how C-SPAN’s transcripts are—pointing the astounding number of rationalizations Schumer nicked while trying to justify the unjustifiable.

THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. NOW, MADAM PRESIDENT, I JUST LISTENED TO THE REPUBLICAN LEADER, AND THERE WAS A GLARING OMISSION IN HIS SPEECH. HE DID NOT MENTION WHAT THE RALLY YESTERDAY, MY SPEECH, OR THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT WAS ABOUT.

The issue at hand is the Minority Leader of the Senate threatening, by name, two Supreme Court justices. The context of such threats is absolutely irrelevant, because such threats, as McConnell correctly made clear, are indefensible. Schumer is signalling that his defense will be based on Rationalization 2 A. Sicilian Ethics, or “They had it coming.“ “This argues that wrongdoing toward a party isn’t really wrong when the aggrieved party has aggrieved the avenger. The victim of the unethical conduct no longer deserves ethical treatment because of the victim’s own misconduct. But the misconduct of a victim never justifies unethical conduct directed against that victim.”

A WOMAN’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CHOOSE. TO THE WOMEN OF AMERICA, WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, WHAT I AM FIGHTING FOR HERE IS YOUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

At least three rationalizations are implied here:

• 25. The Coercion Myth: “I have no choice!” “The unethical option involved less sacrifice, less controversy, less criticism, less effort…in short, less courage, than doing the right thing. … But you still had a choice, and you are still accountable for the choice you made.”
• 25A. Frederick’s Compulsion or “It’s My Duty!” “We all have competing duties; that’s what makes ethics difficult…Ethics requires that when performing a duty will unquestionably result in injustice and harm to others, some consideration and balancing must be applied, followed by making one or more difficult choices.  Duty itself is not enough to dictate those choices, and ethics may, and often does, dictate that a duty must be superseded by other priorities.”
• 28. The Revolutionary’s Excuse: “These are not ordinary times.” “An argument for those who embrace “the ends justify the means”—but only temporarily, mind you!—the Revolutionary’s excuse has as long and frightening a pedigree as any of the rationalizations here….This rationalization suggests that standards of right and wrong can and should be suspended under “special” circumstances, always defined, naturally, by those who defy laws, rules, and societal values. ..Unethical conduct has become ordinary, the new normal. This is, it is fair to say, the current state of American politics.

AN ISSUE, OF COURSE, LEADER McCONNELL COMPLETELY IGNOREDI N HIS SPEECH. I FEEL SO PASSIONATELY ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND I FEEL SO DEEPLY THE ANGER OF WOMEN ALL ACROSS AMERICA ABOUT SENATE REPUBLICANS AND THE COURTS WORKING HAND IN GLOVE TO TAKE DOWN ROE V. WADE. I JUST READ ABOUT A WOMAN IN SHREVEPORT WHO UNDER THE LOUISIANA LAW NOW BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT WOULD HAVE TO TRAVEL OVER 300 MILES TO EXERCISE HER CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS, AND THIS IS HAPPENING IN STATES ACROSS THE COUNTRY. REPUBLICAN STATE LEGISLATURES ARE RESTRICTING A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE SO SEVERELY AS TO MAKE IT NONEXISTENT…

Ah! This makes Chuck so darn angry and he cares so much! Say hello to…Rationalization 25B, The Irresistible Impulse, or “I can’t help myself!”

Here is where Schumer may have alerted us to a missing rationalization. I’m pondering adding 25C, The Romantic’s Excuse, or “I care so much!” What do you think?

…AND THE COURTS ARE NOW LIKELY TO GO ALONG BECAUSE SENATE REPUBLICANS HAVE CONFIRMED NOMINEES THEY BELIEVE WILL STRIP AWAY WOMEN’S RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THIS COUNTRY. GOING SO FAR AS TO DENY A DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT THE RIGHT TO PICK A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE. REPUBLICANS ARE AFRAID HERE IN THE SENATE TO CONFRONT THIS ISSUE DIRECTLY SO THEY TRY TO ACCOMPLISH THROUGH THE COURTS WHAT THEY NEVER WOULD ACCOMPLISH IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, AND THEY LEAVE WOMEN OUT IN THE COLD.

Got it: 2. Ethics Estoppel, or “They’re Just as Bad”…which “posits the absurd argument that because there is other wrongdoing by others that is similar, as bad or worse than the unethical conduct under examination, the wrongdoer’s conduct shouldn’t be criticized or noticed. As a distraction, the excuse is a pathetic attempt to focus a critic’s attention elsewhere, by shouting, “Never mind me! Why aren’t you going after those guys?”

Also greet 2 A. Sicilian Ethics, or “They had it coming,” about which we were warned, and 7. The “Tit for Tat” Excuse, “the principle that bad or unethical behavior justifies, and somehow makes ethical, the same or equivalent unethical behavior in response to it. The logical extension of this fallacy is the abandonment of all ethical standards.”

Then  the worst rationalization of them all makes its appearance (Schumer was bound to use this one…): 22. The Comparative Virtue Excuse: “There are worse things’: “Behavior has to be assessed on its own terms, not according to some imaginary comparative scale. The fact that someone’s act is more or less ethical than yours has no effect on the ethical nature of your conduct. “There are worse things” is not an argument; it’s the desperate cry of someone who has run out of rationalizations.”

SO YES, I AM ANGRY. THE WOMEN OF AMERICA ARE ANGRY. AND YES, WE WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT FOR A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE. I WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT FOR THE WOMEN OF AMERICA.

Schumer unleashes a classic! 13. The Saint’s Excuse: “It’s for a good cause.” “This rationalization has probably caused more death and human suffering than any other. The words “it’s for a good cause” have been used to justify all sorts of lies, scams and mayhem. It is the downfall of the zealot, the true believer, and the passionate advocate that almost any action that supports “the Cause,’ whether it be liberty, religion, charity, or curing a plague, is seen as being justified by the inherent rightness of the ultimate goal.”

He is also appealing to Rationalization 40 A., Otter’s Solution, or “I had to do something!”  “It creates an intellectually dishonest shortcut, making the decision to act before any effective action is considered, designating action the objective rather than what the objective of the action should be. Obviously this is backwards, and it is intentionally backwards, because it takes a detour around essential questions, responsible decision makers must consider before acting…” 

NOW, I SHOULD NOT HAVE USED THE WORDS I USED YESTERDAY. THEY DIDN’T COME OUT THE WAY I INTENDED TO.

Poor Chuck! Luckily, this opens the door to…19. The Perfection Diversion, or “Nobody’s Perfect!” and “Everybody makes mistakes!” “This is a legitimate defense if, in fact, an individual has been accused of not being perfect.  Usually, however, it is an attempt to minimize the significance of genuine misconduct,” and 19A The Insidious Confession, or “It wasn’t the best choice,”  which “falsely changes an accusation of wrongful conduct into one of less than perfect or ideal conduct. Unlike it, however, this variation even rejects the proposition that the choice that was made was a mistake. “Mistake” implies error, which implies wrong. “No,” says the wielder of 19A, “I made no mistakes. It simply wasn’t the best choice…Ethical people don’t think like that. Trustworthy people don’t think like that.”

MY POINT WAS THAT THERE WOULD BE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES, POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP AND SENATE REPUBLICANS IF THE SUPREME COURT , WITH THE NEWLY CONFIRMED JUSTICES, STRIPPED AWAY A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE. OF COURSE I DIDN’T INTEND TO SUGGEST ANYTHING OTHER THAN POLITICAL AND PUBLIC OPINION CONSEQUENCES FOR THE SUPREME COURT, AND IT IS A GROSS DISTORTION TO IMPLY OTHERWISE. I’M FROM BROOKLYN. WE SPEAK IN STRONG LANGUAGE. I SHOULDN’T HAVE USED THE WORDS I DID, BUT IN NO WAY WAS I MAKING A THREAT. I NEVER, NEVER WOULD DO SUCH A THING.

Ha. I already flagged the key rationalization here. Chuck is lying, flat out, denying that he said what he said, and that he would never do what he did. It’s  a textbook example of 64. Yoo’s Rationalization, or “It isn’t what it is!”

Schumer is also showing us Rationalization 51A.  Narcissist Ethics , or “I don’t care,” which asserts “the validity of completely subjective ethics: as long as the self-satisfied, egomaniacal individual doesn’t care about the ethical standards and values being breached or the predictable results of the conduct breaching them, it doesn’t matter who cares. His or her own assessment is enough. If it’s not unethical to him, it’s not unethical. Neat!”

The “I’m from Brooklyn; we speak in strong language” gives us the Golden Rationalization, #1 on the list, “Everybody Does it,” at least in Brooklyn. But that’s not all. This also hits Rationalization 41 A. Popeye’s Excuse, or “I am what I am,”  which “embodies the proposition that genuine unethical conduct and incivility becomes magically virtuous and praiseworthy if it is ‘real,’ ‘sincere’ and ‘unapologetic.’

AND LEADER McCONNELL KNOWS THAT. AND REPUBLICANS WHO ARE BUSY MANUFACTURING OUTRAGE OVER THESE COMMENTS KNOW THAT, TOO. NOW, WHAT WILL REMAIN LONG AFTER THE CLAMOR OVER MY COMMENTS DIES DOWN IS THE ISSUE AT HAND, A WOMAN’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CHOOSE AND REPUBLICAN ATTEMPTS TO INVALIDATE IT. THE FACT THAT MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HAVE WORKED SYSTEMATICALLY OVER THE COURSE OF DECADES TO INSTALL THE JUDICIAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO TAKE DOWN ROE V. WADE AND DO VERY REAL DAMAGE TO THE COUNTRY AND TO THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE, THAT IS THE ISSUE THAT WILL REMAIN. AND WE OWE, I OWE AN OBLIGATION TO THE WOMEN OF AMERICA TO FIGHT FOR THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Schumer is repeating rationalizations he’s already used here, plus one. He’s also evoking 56. The Scooby Doo Deflection, or “I should have gotten away with it!”  “….Since Conduct X by a party or party was unfair or wrong,  dishonest or unethical, Conduct Y on the part of someone else—often the protesters— shouldn’t count, should be considered less wrong, or should be punished more leniently. The argument is silly in Scooby Doo cartoons, and is even more ridiculous in real life.”

The total: 17 rationalizations on the list, and maybe an 18th.

Good job, Senator!