“The Golden Rule of Laws”

Court-packing schemes have something in common with passing a municipal resolution to label one’s political adversaries “domestic terrorists”: their proponents, as David Boaz has observed, tend not to ask “What if my opponents had this power?” Eric Turkewitz expands on the idea in a post:

This is as good a time as any to discuss the Golden Rule of Laws. This rule states that when you want to use some legal maneuver to attack “the other side” ask yourself how “the other side” could likewise use it.


  • It is a great question to ask, but it would seem the other side has no will to use the same legal maneuvers. What conservative cities are labeling Antifa a terrorist organization and threatening action against those associated with it, like happened to the NRA? Where are the multi-year investigations into Hilary Clinton, or the midnight raids (with the media tipped off so they can get prime footage) of associates of liberal politicians?

    Some of these measures, the “other side” could use today, and yet the other side won’t. That would seem to me to be emboldening even those who would stop to question, what if their enemies had the same tools?

    • “Where are the multi-year investigations into Hilary Clinton”..

      Well, there were those 12+ Benghazi investigations. Were they worth the time and effort?

      • BM makes a good point. Another point I will make as moderator is that if commenters want to pursue “your side is worse” political themes, there are literally thousands of other sites that welcome those conversations and can use the clicks. We don’t, so please consider taking Red Team/Blue Team battles elsewhere.

  • But that’s different!

    Related is use of the “modified Golden Rule”: Do unto others as they have done unto you. Thus calling the other side’s actions unethical and then doing the same back to them.

  • The solution that the totalitarian socialist societies have developed is simple:

    One person, one vote, one time.