Hypocrite: We're probably supposed to agree with the retiring Supreme Court justice who excoriates President Bartlet for picking a compromise judge who will be easier to get through the Senate rather than his own favored pick, who is more liberal in his judicial interpretations. But it is hard to take seriously that he is calling the president out on his supposed lack of principles when he admits in the same speech he himself is a blatantly partisan judge who intentionally held off his retirement until the political party he favored was in power.
This seems more like Unintentionally Unsympathetic than hypocrisy, which is a YMMV trope; while judges and Supreme Court justices exerting their authority in politically "activist" ways is certainly controversial and debated, nothing Justice Crouch says or does suggests that he believes judges shouldn't do that despite doing it himself (he doesn't, for example, argue that that justices should take a purely apolitical or non-partisan approach to the law despite acting in a partisan fashion himself, or argue that Bartlet should nominate a purely apolitical justice despite himself being partisan — quite the opposite in fact). From what he see, nothing about Crouch arguing for Judge Mendoza's nomination or waiting for a president who will nominate a replacement more in line with his political / judicial leanings before retiring is inconsistent with how he conducts himself. In short, this seems more like someone disagreeing with Crouch than anything else.
At very least, if it is hypocrisy, then it needs to be reworded so as to better to reflect the trope. As is, it comes off more as someone who disagrees with Crouch taking opportunity to vent spleen a little.
I'm not sure this example is correct.
This seems more like Unintentionally Unsympathetic than hypocrisy, which is a YMMV trope; while judges and Supreme Court justices exerting their authority in politically "activist" ways is certainly controversial and debated, nothing Justice Crouch says or does suggests that he believes judges shouldn't do that despite doing it himself (he doesn't, for example, argue that that justices should take a purely apolitical or non-partisan approach to the law despite acting in a partisan fashion himself, or argue that Bartlet should nominate a purely apolitical justice despite himself being partisan — quite the opposite in fact). From what he see, nothing about Crouch arguing for Judge Mendoza's nomination or waiting for a president who will nominate a replacement more in line with his political / judicial leanings before retiring is inconsistent with how he conducts himself. In short, this seems more like someone disagreeing with Crouch than anything else.
At very least, if it is hypocrisy, then it needs to be reworded so as to better to reflect the trope. As is, it comes off more as someone who disagrees with Crouch taking opportunity to vent spleen a little.
Edited by DoctorNemesis