It's this part of Glenn's piece that I want to quibble with,

"...Dispensing with core Constitutional principles in the name of "practical considerations" -- and treating ludicrous, bad faith claims with respect -- creates a facade of reasonableness. But there's nothing reasonable about it. It's intellectually barren and, worse, is the prime enabler for why our political leaders stray so far and so frequently from those principles. It's why they break the law with impunity and know they can..."

Whoever Glenn is talking about here, that is, the ones "dispensing," they are not doing it for no reason. They don't just wake up one day and decide to dispense with core Constitutional principles. And though they treat whatever they've done and what they think they are doing with respect, we cannot really understand what they've done if we limit our fire just to the dispensing.

What are they thinking? I suspect they think that capitalism is sacred. That is, the prime principle here is the accumulation of profit. Now, maybe they think that selfishness or the profit motive is the best foundation for a society, because, maybe, it makes people make the best..i.e., most profitable decisions, and this leads best to everyone's benefit. Maybe they think this. But, if that is their principle, then doesn't that lead to a contradiction with the "core Constitutional principles" that Glenn here highlights? I suspect you can make "mom and pop" kinds of profits if you obey the "rules of law," but you can't make land-office profits.

Should we be surprised or shocked that the corporations that own the leaders of our government make "loopholes" in the laws that should otherwise prevent gouging and usery?

No. And so can we really be surprised that the bully ignores the "core principles" just as he ignores the traffic and jay-walking tickets?

Glenn is pointing out that the bully tears up all kinds of tickets, parking tickets, notices for various kinds of other minor infractions, but also stuff about major felonies. The guy is just laughing in our faces.

It would seem to us unreasonable for the bully to just ignore all the summons and accusations laid on his doorstep if there was no good explanation for his laughter. On the other hand, It would be reasonable for him to laugh if the guy thought he could get away with any possible crime because he knew he had already bought off all the judges.

It would not be a crazy thing for someone who effectively tells judges what to do to laugh in our faces. It would be something else.