Precedent is a sucky thing. And we've been setting really sucky national security and international activity and civil rights precedents for the last eleven years, across GOP and Democratic administrations and majorities alike.
" If you’re faced with this question — should President X have the power to impose Punishment Y on Bad Person Z? — and you answer in the affirmative based on your adoration for or trust in current President X, or your belief in the wisdom and justness of Punishment Y in the specific proposed case, or your acute scorn for Bad Person Z, you’re actually doing much more than ratifying this power in a single instance, even if that’s the limit of your intention. Whether desired or not, you’re affirming — and entrenching — the legitimacy of the principle itself, ensuring that this power will be exploited in ways you can’t control. When enshrined without checks, the endorsed punishment power will inevitably — necessarily — endure, and even grow, beyond the reign of the leader you trust to future leaders you don’t, and will be applied against not only those you believe are deserving of it but those you know are not."
Or, as LBJ put it: "You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."
I made the argument back on these things when it was Bush, and that the GOP would rue all the precedents they were setting and legislation they were supporting. How would they feel when it was (hypothetically) Hillary in the White House.
The same is true for the Dems and Obama. Even if (a big if) you support his actions, do you want the next president to be able to do the same sort of things?
Embedded Link
A vital (and unlearned) lesson from Julius Caesar
When a band of Roman traitors was uncovered, he urged they not be killed due to the precedent it would set
Google+: View post on Google+