Ethics Alarms conflict resolution guru Extradimensional Cephalopod purports to believe that that there really are two (or more) legitimate points of view on all policy and political disputes. He expounds on this utopian vision in a comment here. I am pretty confident that he knows otherwise, but that he thinks this fantasy is worth embracing in the interests of societal comity, which is another topic.
In reality, many political and social policy positions are indefensible. Such positions are typically supported entirely by appeals to emotion, deliberate distortion of reality, and dishonest use of “facts” and “statistics.” No dispute illustrates this better than illegal immigration. Pro-illegal immigration advocacy should be accorded no respect at all.
Fact: No nation in the 21st Century can survive with open borders, especially a wealthy, free, superior nation like the US. The Woke rebuttal to this is that open borders aren’t really open borders, or “It isn’t what it is.”
Fact: laws have to be enforced, and not enforcing one set of laws because so many people want them to be ignored threatens the integrity of government and the rule of law.
Fact: law enforcement has nothing to do with “kindness”; it is about enforcement. People break laws for all sorts of reasons. If enforcement is predicated on a law-breaker’s needs or desires, law enforcement, indeed law itself, becomes impossible. Yet this is at the core of the pro-illegal immigration trope. The Golden Rule is irrelevant to enforcement.”Compassion,” “Kindness,” Empathy” are deflections.
Fact: A law-breaker cannot retroactively mitigate a crime by subsequent conduct. (This is the Teddy Kennedy fallacy, or on Ethics Alarms, the Ruddigore Fallacy.) It tries to legitimize the rationale of the criminal who says, “OK, I’m going to kill my older brother so I get all of my wealthy family’s estate, but he’s a selfish, gambling-addicted moron and I will use the money for the benefit of humanity, so in the end, how I got the money won’t matter to anyone.”
Fact: Non-serious analogies are the mark of empty logic or dishonest argumentation. Jesus’s immigration status in another time,culture and nation has no relevance to illegal immigration here in 2025. Or are they ignorant arguments from people who are so ill-informed that they pollute civic discourse by their participation in it? If you really think the poem on the Statue of Liberty has any place in the illegal immigration debate, you don’t comprehend the difference between art, ideals, and governance: shut up. You’re an embarrassment; this is a third-grader’s reasoning on display. You want “The New Colossus” to dictate 21st Century immigration policy? Okay, I choose “Horatius at the Bridge.” Exactly as relevant: not at all.
Fact: That an appeal to emotion or another logical fallacy once installed a bad policy does not make the policy any more reasonable or defensible.The Trump Administration is now working to end in-state college tuition benefits for illegal immigrants. Good: giving incentives to law-breakers to keep breaking laws is unethical, irresponsible, dare I say stupid policy. Of course it is. But even Texas has installed such a program, with the then-GOP governor accusing critics of being “heartless.” This was, or course, when Obama’s muddleheaded wokism was softening brains across the land.
Defending illegal immigration and illegal immigrants may be the most indisputable and throbbing example of how far off the rails of logic, common sense, legal principles and policy competence progressives have gone. It is also a strong link to Trump Derangement. We will know the Left’s fever has broken when its leadership returns to the position it held as recently as the Nineties: “Of COURSE we can’t just let aliens sneak across our borders and stay here: Are you nuts?” Until they show themselves to be again capable of rational thought, neither the party nor its ideological base is fit to govern.
Ethics Alarms 
I think E_C’s post was geared to suggesting ways to discuss issues with those who disagree with you by finding some common ground at which to start. He chose the illegal immigration debate, along with several others, as an example of an issue on which Left and Right often come to loggerheads. At least, it didn’t seem to me that he was arguing in favor of illegal immigration.
I do, however, believe you are correct in every fact you pointed out above. I am also quite tired of the entrenched positions of many of my leftist friends and relatives that any disagreement with any tenet on their side is tantamount to racism, sexism, xenophobia, authoritarianism. E_C’s methods would work great in an environment in which we have intelligent rational people who haven’t absorbed Democratic Party Talking Points to use as a hammer whenever they are questioned. My experience has been that there is no conversation to be had with people whose first reaction to an attempt to have an reasoned debate is to accuse me of engaging in bad faith/gotcha tactics.
My TDS sister will not accept any source as valid that does not blame Trump for a situation…not even documentation from a government website. She refuses to believe ICE is arresting people who have committed crimes in our country beyond violating our border laws. As I mentioned last week, her trip to Washington, DC, left her surprised that the Museum of African-American History is still open and that none of the exhibits have been closed because her mind is bent on believing that President Trump is a racist who wants to banish all references to slavery, Jim Crow, Civil Rights, the whole ball of wax. And there’s no common ground to be found there if one insists on holding a different point of view.
My point is that there is no “common ground” with a baseless position, and granting it “common ground” status confers legitimacy that is unearned and, in fact, harmful. What’s the common ground with “Imagine”? Yes, it would be nice if there were no more wars? What does that accomplish?
AM Golden,
That is a key observation, in my opinion. The liberal/Left side of the political spectrum still refuses to define “immigrants in the U.S. without permission” as “illegal immigrants.” Jessica Tarlov does this obliquely – and repeatedly – on “The Five”, stating that two-thirds of “immigrants here illegally have committed no crimes”…the implication being they should never be tracked down and returned to their point of origin.
When one side simply changes the definition of “illegal” to mean “not illegal” – and then sticks to that definition to the point that any different meaning is labelled racist and xenophobic – there can be no breakthrough moment. There can be no solution. There can only be argument, name-calling, and ultimately (when all else fails) violence, which we consistently see from the Left.
Communication is virtually impossible if we don’t agree on definitions. By characterizing all immigration – legal and illegal – as just “immigration”, it is easier to label those opposed to illegal immigration as being “anti-immigrant”. Woke is another example. Abortion/Choice/healthcare is another. Gender-Affirming Care/healthcare, etc
Exactly. This “language re-definition” is everywhere.
I can be for language re-definition. Per immigration, I’d say “Immigration” and “Immigrant” is a legal process. You can’t be a migrant if you don’t participate in the process. Thus, if you are outside of that process, you are nothing more than a “foreign national”. Residents have no special meaning or privilege, it’s just a word.
In the end, when someone is picked up, the headline should be no more than “A Sierra Leone National was deported”, “A Mexican National was deported”, “A German National was deported”. You want the headline to say “immigrant” when it applies to you? Then you need to have been in the immigration process. If the process results are not in your favor, the process has concluded and you’re back to being just a foreign national. Other designations could be foreign visitors (visiting on a valid visa), foreign student or foreign worker (studying or working on a valid visa), foreign diplomat.
So yeah, I’m fine using more precise language to stop the blustering. As long as it’s more precise, not more manipulative. It’s the method of the American Left, it seems, that want to bundle people together and make monoliths when it suits their needs and then redefine special identity groups when that suits their elitism.
Spot on.
The term “immigrant” implies one being involved in the legal immigration process.
The term “illegal immigrant” is itself a manipulation of the language meant to bridge the language towards “undocumented immigrant”, blur the distinction between those legally following the process and “illegal aliens”, or even more precise, foreign nationals who are intentionally subverting process.
We’ve sailed past the Overton Window on this term and didn’t even realize it.
Driving without licence, registration, proofof insuranceisn’t just undocumented driving.
No machine gun is illegal. There’s just documented machine guns and undocumented machine guns.
A Maryland man is deported.
That’s the precision we have today.
Not that EC needs my help, but I think you misread his position. Here is the relevant point from the earlier post:
“Illegal immigration: I don’t want to let violent criminals enter the country AND I want people to be able to leave poor, violent countries and find places to thrive economically and culturally.
You want people to be able to violate laws at will. No excuse for such a belief.”
Unless I am reading this wrong, he is stating (on the general topic of illegal immigration) two competing interest from opposing parts of the political spectrum. He does not say anywhere that illegal immigration is justified.
I can oppose illegal immigration all I want and still “want people to be able to leave poor, violent countries and find places to thrive economically and culturally.” To some extent, our immigration system allows that very thing. But, I still want it done LEGALLY.
In any case, I can acknowledge the mindset of the other side and still disagree with their policy proposals. And, being able to state their mindset accurately is critical for productive discourse.
-Jut
But EC’s second comment ignores the requirement of process and law. The statement says that the believer wants the result without acknowledging the necessary consequences of that result. The only way everyone can leave violent countries for the US is open borders…and it’s a disingenuous statement anyway. Pro-illegal immigrant activists aren’t talking about other “places,” just this place.
I hate this. I already lost a short comment on my phone.
Dissenting Comment, Take Two:
I disagree.
I think you jumped ahead a step. The first step is to state the general principle. The SECOND step is to discuss how to implement it.
that is often the tricky part, but, if you can’t even understand the opposition’s concern, you make no progress.
for instance, in the immigration issue, we have asylum laws, we have worker visa programs. But, like you said, we cannot have an open borders policy and we can’t condone violations of the law.
but those judgments are the second step.
it is only after you identify the goal that you can evaluate whether it can be accomplished and whether an agreement can be reached.
when you fail to understand the opposition’s concern (and it seems the Left are experts at that) dialogue is impossible.
for instance, on abortion, the right want to subjugate women
in voter ID: the right wants to suppress the black vote
on immigration: the right hates brown people
on welfare reform: the right hates poor people and love the rich
gun laws: the right live their guns more than they live their children
I honestly think the right understands the left better than the left understands the right. In that regard, EC is preaching to the wrong choir. I get it. I think I fairly well understand the views of people who differ from me on policy judgments.
I can engage those on the left (even among my friends) because I understand them. When I make them understand me, only then can we discuss policy.
-Jut
I’m sorry about the commenting snafus. That’s about all I’m experiencing right now trying to post using this %$@#!laptop.
it is the ongoing problem when commenting on my phone.
-Jut
A general principle that is impossible on its face isn’t serious,worth stating, or arguing about. How does one implement “Imagine”? You can’t. It’s already clear and obvious. So why give the proposition any respect or attention at all?
so the principle, “every person not here legally should be deported,” is not a valid proposition because it is impossible to implement?
I disagree. It is a legitimate first principle.
-Jut
It isn’t impossible to implement. My position has always been that it is impossible to implement without causing intolerable visuals and extreme national unrest, but if we decide we can survive those, them it’s quite possible. Sure, it’s a legitimate first principle.
One that isn’t : Ban firearms.
I don’t think it is a matter of visuals (or not solely visuals). It is one of resources, as well. The estimate of illegals when Bush 2 was in office was around 12 to 20 Million, I believe.
I would find any estimate under 30 Million at this time (especially after Biden’s performance), to be unbelievably low.
Now, Trump has done a very good job at showing that it is possible to close the border and thereby actually chip away at the number of people here illegally.
But, even if we could deport 1000 illegals per day (and keep in mind that, in many cases, due process can be slow), you are talking 30,000 days, not counting weekends and holidays, it would take 82 years to get it done.
-Jut
Reminds me of Katherine Maher’s, CEO of NPR quote:
“In fact, our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that is getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done.”
Coming to consensus, creating peaceful solutions, and finding common ground are all wonderful things. But not at the cost of abandoning Truth, which used to be one of the highest ideals anything could achieve. The damage which discarding the ruler of truth can create is apparent all around us, with people of all stripes competing to come up with more and more ideas which can be marketed and leveraged for power, despite their obvious lack of any connection to reality.
For her, it’s an either/or situation. I reject that argument. You can revere the truth and still try to find common ground. I have a hard time believing in man-made climate change but I have no problem appreciating the need for clean air and clean water. Can I start there with someone who is an environmentalist and try to find common ground? With some people, I can. We can disagree on some aspects of environmentalism and agree on other aspects.
It’s the extremists, the ones who insist that they are on the right side of history – their truth – that make it either/or. Either we embrace their hysteria lock, stock and barrel, regardless of what it does to the economy, standard of living or even the health and well-being of currently living people, or we are deniers who want to mortgage the future of the next generation.
Besides, for people like Katherine Maher, what she considers truth is Leftist cant. It’s an inviolable truth. When she reports with a left-wing bias, she believes she is reporting the Truth. To find common ground is to condescend to find a way to talk to conservatives.
This brings us back to the meditations of Marcus Aurelius and his command that we must look into the essential nature of something, in context, to understand it.
That is no less true of the illegal immigration debate. First, as to what it is: it is the addition of persons to the country outside of legal processes; in fact, proscribed by law. It is not necessary to inquire as to why we made that law — for the purposes of illegal immigration, it is irrelevant.
So next, we inquire as to why anyone, let alone a major political party, would be so permissive? There can only be one reason — self-interest. Be it additional favorable voters, a rhetorical albatross to hang on the opposition, a method to gain additional seats in the legislature or a justification for ever more confiscatory taxes (“and” may be a better conjunction, but I’ll leave that to the reader), self-interest provides scope for the logical fallacies supporting the position.
So all this “woke” justification is really just performative, something to intone solemnly to the adoring media or shout wildly to the rabid sycophants. It is not meant to be logically consistent or defensible; rather it is intended to be emotionally satisfying to low-information left-leaning people and pave the way to arguments that opponents are heartless xenophobes and racists.
Illegal immigration unquestionably benefits progressives politically. That’s why they argue for it so strenuously and attack anyone who wants it to end. But even if it didn’t help them all that much, they would be happy to take the position in favor just to avoid looking like they agree with their opponents.
Such is our politics these days.
I read EC’s comment as highlighting reflection rather reaction.
Reaction being simply responding to the left’s nonsense with the right’s right sense.
Reflection being restating what you hear the other party communicating, not saying.
Not, “that he thinks this fantasy is worth embracing in the interests of societal comity”.
Jack,
Your rejoinders to EC’s immigration debate queries are correct but EC was suggesting a way for polar opposites to find common ground on issues. That is a lofty position. However, it is naive if there can be no common ground to reach.
(As an aside, it interesting that EC suggests things conservatives/right-wingers should do to encourage debate with liberals and The Left, that conservatives and right-wingers are not evil racists. sexists, etc. . . . Implicit in that position is that the liberal/Leftist position is, in reality, the correct one. Perhaps also implicit in that position is assumption that the same should apply to liberals and The Left to the right’s positions, but, pinning the obligation solely on conservatives is unfair and grants far more legitimacy to the liberal/Leftist position than is actually warranted or merited.)
I do think the Roger FIsher “Getting to Yes” addresses these points very clearly as a way to manage conflicts and seek resolution of policy issues. However, when the other side has accused you and your side of embodying grave evil, there is no real ability to getting to a common ground. I mean, if Trump is Hilter and his followers are Nazis, then history dictates that the only legitimate solution is that he and they should be annihilated at the core. “Getting to Yes” would simply mean lining them up against the wall for summary execution.
jvb
Honestly – I left the first comment to EC when it was posted. I stand by the underlying sentiment for my incoherence – that yes, when discussing a ***specific policy*** restating someone’s position is helpful to show you understand what they are attempting to convey. However, in a broad topic, saying “I understand you are emotional and I’m trying to use logic” is never going to find common ground.
In the *topic* of guns, the liberal mind will always present from a position of “we don’t want dead kids”; as if that’s an indictment on the conservative mind that they *want* dead kids. No, the conservative wants no more dead kids than the liberal and saying as much as an obvious truth to a liberal will likely result with the liberal trying to prove the conservative wrong.
“Oh, but you don’t believe in banning AR-15s, so you obviously are lying and you do actually want more dead kids.”
Nevermind the fact that AR-15s are the least likely firearm to be used in a shooting or to cause death, particularly a .223 version.
So what was gained by expressing an obvious truth to someone whose only goal was to plug their ears and say “nuh-uh”?
I do have good faith conversations with people when they want to have them. If we talk guns, I ask “What do you think can be done?”
If they pick “emotion” I nod and dismiss.
If they pick “policy” I engage and dissect.
“Oh, you think gun stores should lock up their inventory at night and not leave them in the storefront window? That’s actually a good idea.”
“Oh, you want to ban black AR-15s but not white AR-15s? I’m not sure that will have an effect on the results.”
Honestly, I feel like Conservatives are out here giving Liberals a full blue print for the arguments that are effective and the ones that are ineffective – and they still keep coming with the same old tired arguments, time after time. It’s ridiculous. “but think of the children!” “I have and them having firearm training is way better for everyone than banning any firearms.” “So you think dead kids is acceptable?” “No. But it is regrettable. But evil finds a way and while proving a negative such as the positive impact of firearms in society is impossible, I firmly believe the rights and freedoms associated with an individual’s right to self-defense greatly outweigh the lone-wolf psychosis of one bad apple.”
Ugh. Anyways – everyone have a good weekend. Jack, I hope you recover and feel better!
The frustration is real, I agree!
It sure would be nice if the country could collectively agree to put aside the political slogans and posturing and simply agree to address the number one cause of death for children and teens (since 2020 I think) in the country.
Re “evil will find a way” in some cases–for example, school shootings, often BY teens–evil/sociopathy/other extreme mental illness is involved, but for many of the dead by firearms kids/teens scenarios, it is not. Suicide & accidents–often involving unsecured guns–are also common.
Yes of course there are other ways to attempt suicide, but few are as quickly and reliably lethal as firearms (BTW this explains why in the U.S., men are more likely to die by suicide even though women are more likely attempt suicide: men are more likely to choose firearms as a method).
BTW I am not personally a fan of firearms but my partner is a gunsmith and long distance shooter so our household is well stocked with guns (all properly secured when he doesn’t have them on his person). He is also politically a liberal who (along with over 70% or 80% of citizens depending on the policy), supports the right to bear arms PLUS reasonable regulations like universal background checks, licensing, red flag laws etc. that promote gun safety.
As is typical, those with the most extreme positions get the most attention. This can deceive us into thinking that these positions are much more widely endorsed (on the left and on the right) than they actually are.
Personally I’m fond of pointing out that, prior to the invention of gunpowder, murder didn’t exist and hadn’t ever happened in all of prior human history.
That’s actually true, right? RIGHT?!?
–Dwayne
That’s right. It was an evil plot by the Chinese to bring down western civilization when they invented gunpowder.
I think the true heart of the disagreement about guns (and probably a lot of the other major political hot button issues) is that those on the left think the government can and should solve problems, while those on the right understand that the government doesn’t solve problems, it just creates trade-offs. Generally speaking of course–there are issues where the side that believes in “solutions” is reversed.
That’s kind of the thought behind the Up/Down/Left/Right graph that shows Liberal/Conservative on the Left/Right and Authoritarian/Anarchist on the Up/Down. Rather, for an issue, plot it on the X-axis as Emotional-Logical and the Y-axis as Government Intervene to control a solution vs No Gov’t Intervention, Only Individual solutions.
The problem potentially comes down to “We’re only going to solve emotional issues that have some basis in logic, and we don’t believe in the individual, so we have to “do something”, but we hate authoritarianism so we’ll only do half-measures.
The evolution from the reality in this preceeding sentence is that it’s forcing me to take a step back and really ask those first questions: “Is this actually a problem?” “Is the problem accurately stated?”
As an immigrant myself, In sympathetic to having a liberal immigration policy. But in order to have a liberal immigration policy, you must first be able to have an immigration policy. And before you can have an immigration policy, you must have effective control over immigration. Otherwise your policy might as well be a poem engraved on the base of a statue.
JM writes: Fact: No nation in the 21st Century can survive with open borders
Pretty strange “Fact” — this looks like a prediction to me.
Statements about the expected future of any social system are best evaluated using probabilistic statements. (Likely, unlikely, probable, improbable, etc.) They tend to be based on observed events in the past, and the past is not a perfect predictor of the future.
The past DOES likely provide the best guidance we have.
There are regions of the world with open border agreements — Schengen comes to mind. The East African Community is a more recent example. Have these agreements caused the nations within the agreement areas to cease to exist? Apparently not.
Of course, the nations within the agreement are clearly defined, and the borders are not open to those outside of the agreement.
Do you have a recent example of a nation with completely open borders that has ceased to exist as a result? Two or more examples would be even better for establishing “failure to survive” as a probable outcome.
England is on the way,
Hmm, well, I think those outside the UK may view England as no longer a nation but I think within the UK England Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland still view themselves as nations–certainly as countries.
I do agree that England’s identity as a nation has been somewhat subsumed by the UK (if that was your point re “does not survive”?).
The UK is not part of the Schengen Agreement (they opted out in 1985).
So they do not have open borders beyond the internal boundaries between the 4 countries of the UK.
I see you conveniently omitted “especially a wealthy, free, superior nation like the US.” Schengen risks little by calling out to the poor and desperate, “Come and get it!”
I know that you have said before that you don’t have much interest in international comparisons. Also true that a statement like “No nation” kind of invites one to think of more than one nation!
Perhaps more precisely, your prediction (I won’t call it a fact, for reasons detailed in my comment) might be something like:
The United States cannot survive as a nation-state in the 21st century with open borders.
I won’t have time to untangle all this until Sunday at the earliest, but I’ll leave this here:
What exactly is a “legitimate point of view”? Is it like a True Scotsman?
Hoist by your own petard, I venture. If one mocks the concept of illegitimate points of view, one takes the position that all positions, beliefs and arguments are equally valid. That question discards the unavoidable factors of accumulated wisdom, progress in understanding the universe and realty, cultural/societal values, history, critical thought,logic and ethics. Positions must be accorded respect even when they are impossible, irrational and thoroughly discredited. War is Peace. “There can be no illegal immigration on stolen lands,” as one Democratic official said this week. Women exists to be subservient to men. Husbands have a right to rape their wives. Police should be able to beat confessiosn out of suspects. I could write these down forever, and you think it is a good use of time to debate any of them. We know that the Tragedy of the Commons accurately predicts human behavior. It is one of many reasons open borders in the US (Not Madagascar, Holly’s deflection) are an indefensible—illegitimate!—point of view.
There is a tendency to approach politics, and conversations about politics, from a perspective that puts too much faith in reason, and with too rosy assumptions about the good faith of the actors in that debate.
About the immigration debate, conservatives have reasons to question the good faith of the position of the Democrats. It has been argued that the reason that the Democrats are not in support of the immigration laws is related to naked electoral interests: 1) illegal immigrations skews representation in the House in favor of Democrats as allocation of seats is based on the census which counts “persons” instead of 2) illegal immigrants have voted in elections 3) Democrats hope and expect that naturalization of illegal immigrants will naturally vote Democrat.
It does not help that the Democrats are against mandatory voter ID, and other measures to secure the integrity of elections. Again, naked electoral interests are at play here.
It surely does not help that any attempts to enforce the law, and adopt measures to secure the the integrity of elections have been met with accusations of “fascism” and “racism”.
I am not even addressing the mistrust and political ill will that has been generated by the Russian collusion hoax, followed by two impeachment attempts, followed by lawfare to keep Trump of the ballot, plus two assassination attempts.
As Ronald Reagan observed in Reykjavik is that you do not always have to negotiate, and that the best action is to simply walk away if a win-win as a result of negotiation is not in the cards. This willingness to walk away was backed up by economic and technological power, and ultimately led to the end of the Cold War. Further negotiations would only serve as a delay tactic.
In 2024 Donald Trump decisively won the election. Typically that is the way political debates are resolved. And what we are seeing is that all stops are being pulled out by the Democrats to stop the President from executing his agenda, by sanctuary cities and states, by the judiciary, by deep state actors hidden in federal agencies, by state reps i Texas denying a quorum to prevent a vote that will not go their way, etc.
So I am not blaming the administration to conclude that the time for debating about issues like immigration is over as the debate about these have been decisively settled by an election, and therefore it is simply time for the President to use his executive power to do the will of the electorate.
As for the MAGA Republicans and conservatives, they are sick and tired of being called names (“racists”, “Nazi”, etc.), and have no reason to see anyone using these tactics as a worthy conversation partner.
Too much faith in reason?????
I am neither a Kantian nor an idealist. People are not necessarily reasonable, especially when their personal interests or their tribes interests are involved. Assuming good faith of your opponent may be an exercise in naivety; your opponent may just say anything and do anything to score a win. Political debates are often won based on logical fallacies and appeals to emotion, because the public will vote for that candidate that is most relatable to the public, and not necessarily the one with the facts and logics on their side. We should not underestimate the lack of success of reason due to people’s ignorance and gullibility. People reach ethical conclusions based on intuition and emotion among other factors, instead of reason; the reasoning often comes post hoc, thereby rationalizing ethics decisions made, as Jonathan Haidt argued in his book “The Righteous Mind”.
So I prefer to be more practical, and look at what interests are at stake, both for specific groups, and for the nation as a whole, but also what power and leverage all the actors in the game have. This is a much more realist approach, and makes me appreciate utilitarian and Machiavellian approaches to politics more than the abstractions of Kant and Hegel.
About the topic of illegal immigration, I think the time of talking is over in the USA, and it is simply time for the Trump administration to flex its muscles and use the executive power at its disposal to enforce the law. The Democrats lost the debate and the elections, are out of arguments, do not enjoy public support as the polls indicate, their naked electoral interests in this issue are to transparent to ignore, their integrity is absent, and they have made such an ass of themselves (and still do) that the only sane approach is to make them fall in line. (My personal opinion is that if Trump needs to waltz over lower tier federal courts with activist judges to execute the will of the people, I am fine with that too, but that is a separate topic that falls out of the scope of EC’s points).