Joe Blow believes we shouldn't Grok. Right now the law requires us not to do anything to people who Grok. In fact, the Supreme Court has granted Grokking as a constitutional right even though it's not in the Constitution. Now someone is going to be appointed attorney general who believes Grokking to be morally wrong in every case, even though most Americans think it's ok in at least some cases and many think it's fine in many cases. What do we do? We have senators try to prevent the man's nomination on the grounds that he can't enforce a law he doesn't agree with. The appointee's party gets really mad and insists that it's an attorney general's job to enforce the law, not to write it, so why worry about the fact that he'd have different laws if he were a legislator? He insists that he will enforce the law as it stands even though he disagrees with it, but only eight of the opposing party's senators are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when he said those things. A certain Master of Parables cheers them on as the only honorable senators of their party at that moment.
Four years later, Joe Blow resigns, and the president decides to appoint a new attorney general. He picks Clark Kent. Currently Korging has many requirements if it's to be done legally. Some people do it anyway. Kent wants to see some of those requirements removed, and he wants some of the penalties lowered for those who Korg illegally. Well, it's not clear actually that he thinks this. He belongs to a group that probably has some diversity of opinion but that as a whole generally supports the viewpoint I just ascribed to him. Some of his own party now get really mad. They think it's awful to put someone into a position of enforcing the law when he advocates lowering the penalties for that law, even though it's the legislatures job to set the level of penalties a crime can carry and the judiciary's job to set the actual penalty in a real case (sometimes with the jury carrying out the actual choice of sentence).
Here's the question: should those who complained about the opposition party Borking Joe Blow over Grokking be able to do the same thing with Clark Kent over Korging? Both are being nominated for the attorney general position. Both are being accused of holding views that disagree with the law and are therefore expected not to be able to enforce the law. Both cases involved accusations and charges before the man was even able to say anything. The difference is that with Joe Blow it was the opposing party, with only two honorable men standing up against their under-the-belt party members. Now it's his own party doing this. The above-mentioned Master of Parables considered his position on the matter and realized that such vicious opposition to this nominee really isn't much different from what the opposing party did to Joe Blow. Thus the Master of Parables cannot endorse the attitude he keeps seeing directed against Clark Kent.