When President Biden pardoned his son, Hunter, for basically every bad thing the guy did for the last ten years, Republicans predictably cried foul, just like the Democrats did when President Trump pardoned Steve Bannon, among many others.

Precious few bothered to point out that this see-saw criticism happens every day, all the time. If a Republican abuses a woman, the Democrats blame conservatism. If a guy on the blue side does the deed, Republicans say it’s because liberals are weak on crime.

When President Clinton was on the hot seat for abusing Monica Lewinsky, I was one of the only non-Republican women on television criticizing Clinton and saying that I would not have voted for him had I known about his abuse of women before the election. It should not have been difficult for all women to condemn Clinton, but no Democrat did. Even the National Organization for Women stuck with him. They still haven’t recovered, nor should they.

Why is it so hard to be objective in politics?

What happened to critical thinking? Why are people so willing to shill for one side or the other even when they know they’re being ridiculous or hypocritical?

Maybe Orwell was right. People want to be told what to think. They’re afraid of not saying the right thing. They’d rather give up freedom of the mind than risk losing affection from the clan. They don’t seem to understand that if the only reason people befriend you is that you agree with them, they’re not your friend anyway. In fact, they probably laugh at you behind your back for being so spineless.

2025 might be a good year to start thinking differently about politics.

Instead of jerking knees and criticizing Trump for being inhumane if he tightens immigration and increases deportations, remember that Hillary Clinton expressed a similar sentiment in 2013.

And when Biden squeezes in a few last minute judicial appointments, remember that Trump will do the same when he has the chance because — that’s what presidents do. They have virtually unchecked authority to appoint federal judges and other officials regardless of what’s best for the American people.

Our biggest problem is not that they have such power, it’s that too many people think it’s un-American when the party they don’t like asserts that power.

Instead of hobbling along like party-line sheep who cheer and boo on command, how about we propose a change to the pardon process, and rethink the way judicial appointments are done so that there’s more public oversight and accountability. And while we’re at it, maybe we should talk about the generally anti-democratic nature of the entire judicial branch.

The Supreme Court ruled many years ago in Marbury v. Madison that the judicial branch has the final say over what laws mean, how they’re enforced, etc. That’s an awful lot of power for one branch and to nobody’s surprise it has caused profound harm over the years, from Plessy to Citizens United and Dobbs. Maybe it’s time to revisit Marbury so that the American people can hold the Supreme Court accountable for anti-democratic decision-making without having to amend the Constitution.

In the meantime, we have no choice but to accept the fact that corruption and the unchecked power to hand out pardons for cash (and family members) are unavoidable. It sounds hopeless, I know, but it wasn’t that long ago that we elected Jimmy Carter, a man who, for the most part, resisted corruption and prioritized people over profits.

The only family member Jimmy had to worry about pardoning was his brother Billy, for burping.

Wendy Murphy is an attorney and longtime victims’ advocate.