I feel like I've increasingly seen "pass legislation in bad faith that you know will be struck down" as a conservative legislative tactic (see recent abortion laws, bill curtailing voting rights) and I can't help but feel there should be some sort of consequence for consistently acting in bad faith.
The consequence is supposed to be that you get voted out of office. Unfortunately, there seems to be quite an audience for bad-faith politics nowadays. And I don't think this is unique to conservatives, and I also don't think that your examples are good ones. It seems increasingly clear that anti-abortion bills, for example, are not being passed in bad faith. The Republican Party really is intent on delivering on its promise to overturn Roe, and it looks like they are going to succeed.
On the other side, I'm pretty disappointed in how Merrick Garland is handling the events of Jan 6, 20201.
But we should probably shut this conversation down because we are getting very close to violating the HN prohibition on political discussions (if we have not already crossed that line).
That has nothing to do with what I mean by good faith - I just mean that the legislation they’ve proposed is the legislation that they want passed.
That’s different from a poison pill amendment, where the intention isn’t to actually implement the policy, just to kill the legislation that you’re attaching it to.
Maybe it is. But "bad faith" is definitely not meaningless. At the very least we can expect any party who can defend itself, to not respond well when they believe you are acting in bad faith.
'Bad faith' is a term literally intended for situations such as these. When you do something 'according to the rules' but clearly against the intent of the rules.
reply