–By Sebastian
Justice Kennedy resigning is a horrible blow. As a gay man I wouldn't say that he always had our back, but he was an ally (in the sense of having very different priorities, yet still working together with us) nonetheless. If we are going to get through all this we probably need to accept even reluctant sort-of allies.
In the parts of the blogosphere and social media world I inhabit, there seems to be quite a bit of talk about "court packing" as soon as we get a chance. Court packing in this context means adding additional members to the Supreme Court until we think we would have a majority. No one seems to defend it as an objectively good idea for the health of the Supreme Court, it seems to be a tit-for-tat escalation for the (ridiculous) ploy that McConnell used to keep Merrick Garland off the bench. I understand the tactical interest in tit-for-tat, but lets talk strategy.
Scenario 1: Democrats control both houses and the Presidency for a few terms. You don’t need to pack the courts, you pass a bunch of laws. You pass a voters rights law, you pass a new civil rights law, you pass a strong health care bill.
Scenario 1a: the Supreme Court does annoying things on the edges, but for the most part let’s Congress do it’s thing. You got your way AND didn’t break the system even more.
Scenario 1b: the conservative Court obstructs even things clearly in Congressional power. Now you can Court pack because you are being forced into it. People will see that you aren’t just breaking things worse.
Scenario 2: Democrats don’t control both Houses and the Presidency. Well they can’t pack anyway. So now we are just talking about breaking things without being able to do it.
Scenario 3: Democrats control both Houses and the Senate and the Presidency by such thin margins that they don’t think they will have it long.
Scenario 3a: Democrats spend their political energy getting 3 or 4 major bills passed (voting rights etc).
Scenario 3b: Democrats spend much of their political energy deliberately breaking the Supreme Court while knowing they are on a knife edge of just handing the tactic over to Republicans after an escalation.
If you’re in scenario 1 you don’t need to break things even more than the Republicans did until you know that you’re in 1b, and you have time to see which one you’re in.
If you’re in scenario 3 you’d be a fool to spend the short time you have power introducing new brokenness into the system (just to show that you're 'serious') rather than passing some good policy advances.
Please note that while I think an argument about the proper place of norms or comity in politics might theoretically be useful, this post does not rely on such notions.
the conservative Court obstructs even things clearly in Congressional power.
As it has been doing, regularly, since Bush v Gore. e.g. gutting the Voting Rights Act.
You’re expecting, or even hoping for, principled jurisprudence from Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and whatever Federalist nightmare Trump nominates ?
May as well wish on a star.
the conservative Court obstructs even things clearly in Congressional power.
As it has been doing, regularly, since Bush v Gore. e.g. gutting the Voting Rights Act.
You’re expecting, or even hoping for, principled jurisprudence from Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and whatever Federalist nightmare Trump nominates ?
May as well wish on a star.
i’m not in favor of court packing, period.
if the (D)’s cab take the senate, they can, quite fairly IMO, simply decline to entertain any trump nominee.
what goes around, etc.
if they don’t, or if they do and can’t agree to that strategy, trump will most likely nominate somebody out there on the federalist / roe delendo est spectrum. and SCOTUS decisions for more or less a generation are going to suck, from my point of view anyway.
so people who are interested in things like, frex, gay rights are going to have to find other means to advance their interests.
it is what it is.
i’m not in favor of court packing, period.
if the (D)’s cab take the senate, they can, quite fairly IMO, simply decline to entertain any trump nominee.
what goes around, etc.
if they don’t, or if they do and can’t agree to that strategy, trump will most likely nominate somebody out there on the federalist / roe delendo est spectrum. and SCOTUS decisions for more or less a generation are going to suck, from my point of view anyway.
so people who are interested in things like, frex, gay rights are going to have to find other means to advance their interests.
it is what it is.
I realize that I left things a little negative. What should we do now? Well first, Democrats need to hang together to oppose any but the most centrist ever heard of nominee. (Maybe nobody but Garland?) That leaves Republicans needing every single vote with McCain out of commission. Then we put pressure on all of the purple state senators to try to get a non-crazy.
I realize that I left things a little negative. What should we do now? Well first, Democrats need to hang together to oppose any but the most centrist ever heard of nominee. (Maybe nobody but Garland?) That leaves Republicans needing every single vote with McCain out of commission. Then we put pressure on all of the purple state senators to try to get a non-crazy.
i’m not in favor of court packing, period.
I think we need to rethink the Supreme Court, and lifetime appointments. I’m not sure that I’m against court packing.
Our Constitution, which I have for most of my life held up like the Torah, is not up to what’s happening now. Russia and the Republican Party conspired to do something to our 2016 elections. Obviously, “we” (some of us) helped. Even if we get hold of all of the FEC violations, the crazy bots, the voting rolls hacking, etc., no one (apparently) is interested in saying this stuff made anything illegitimate.
We need to figure out a way to redress this wrong to the majority of our population. It wasn’t just the electoral college, which is our peculiar problem. The Russia connection, and the money laundering and Mandarin Candidate stuff – we need a fix. We’ll not have trust in the system until then.
i’m not in favor of court packing, period.
I think we need to rethink the Supreme Court, and lifetime appointments. I’m not sure that I’m against court packing.
Our Constitution, which I have for most of my life held up like the Torah, is not up to what’s happening now. Russia and the Republican Party conspired to do something to our 2016 elections. Obviously, “we” (some of us) helped. Even if we get hold of all of the FEC violations, the crazy bots, the voting rolls hacking, etc., no one (apparently) is interested in saying this stuff made anything illegitimate.
We need to figure out a way to redress this wrong to the majority of our population. It wasn’t just the electoral college, which is our peculiar problem. The Russia connection, and the money laundering and Mandarin Candidate stuff – we need a fix. We’ll not have trust in the system until then.
i have no problem with revisiting lifetime appointments. i just think packing is a short term fix that will come back to bite us.
i have no disagreement with anything else you’ve said here.
people who are in a position to change things in a substantive way need to step up and do so. there hasn’t been much of that happening, i don’t know if it will.
if it doesn’t, you are correct, there will not be trust in the system.
absent that, the wheels come off. i have no idea what that looks like, ultimately. it probably will not look like any one thing, it’ll be disorder, and other orders good and bad will emerge.
it’s not like the rest of the world is just going to sit around and see how it all works out.
these are probably the weirdest times of my life, just in terms of having no idea where it’s all going. maybe the nixon thing was comparable, but the distinctively abhorrent personality and blatant venality of trump kind of kicks it up a few notches.
your guess is as good as mine.
we need capable, responsible leadership. absent that, people will take things into their own hands, at that point it’s katy bar the door.
things could actually happen quite quickly, sometimes they do.
bon chance america.
i have no problem with revisiting lifetime appointments. i just think packing is a short term fix that will come back to bite us.
i have no disagreement with anything else you’ve said here.
people who are in a position to change things in a substantive way need to step up and do so. there hasn’t been much of that happening, i don’t know if it will.
if it doesn’t, you are correct, there will not be trust in the system.
absent that, the wheels come off. i have no idea what that looks like, ultimately. it probably will not look like any one thing, it’ll be disorder, and other orders good and bad will emerge.
it’s not like the rest of the world is just going to sit around and see how it all works out.
these are probably the weirdest times of my life, just in terms of having no idea where it’s all going. maybe the nixon thing was comparable, but the distinctively abhorrent personality and blatant venality of trump kind of kicks it up a few notches.
your guess is as good as mine.
we need capable, responsible leadership. absent that, people will take things into their own hands, at that point it’s katy bar the door.
things could actually happen quite quickly, sometimes they do.
bon chance america.
Why shouldn’t the Dems not let Trump nominate someone, just as the Republicans did? That moves the fight to the present. Of course, the Dems don’t have the same tools, but I’m assuming that they must have some and there should be pressure on Flake and others like him. I’m not ranging over a lot of networks, so my take is that it seems like court packing is something proposed because it is assumed that stopping the next nominee will break the system? Sebastian, is there some reason why court packing is turned to and the fight over the nominee is taken as a ‘well, let’s make the best of this?’
Why shouldn’t the Dems not let Trump nominate someone, just as the Republicans did? That moves the fight to the present. Of course, the Dems don’t have the same tools, but I’m assuming that they must have some and there should be pressure on Flake and others like him. I’m not ranging over a lot of networks, so my take is that it seems like court packing is something proposed because it is assumed that stopping the next nominee will break the system? Sebastian, is there some reason why court packing is turned to and the fight over the nominee is taken as a ‘well, let’s make the best of this?’
Sorry, typing too quickly, obviously Trump can nominate, but using every tool to do exactly the same thing that was done to Obama is what I meant.
Sorry, typing too quickly, obviously Trump can nominate, but using every tool to do exactly the same thing that was done to Obama is what I meant.
I think we need to rethink the Supreme Court, and lifetime appointments. I’m not sure that I’m against court packing.
This. The system is really broken. So this:
No one seems to defend it as an objectively good idea for the health of the Supreme Court
… I would quibble with.
It does seem like this ultra-high-stakes 9 lifetime appointments system we’re locking into right now is maybe not the objectively ideal approach.
Now, simply packing another 10 or 50 or 100 seats in there wouldn’t necessarily fix everything, but I’m not sure it would hurt. It would lower the partisan appointment stakes, increase capacity, allow specialization, etc. Who knows.
After all, I’m not actually sure it makes sense that the size of the court hasn’t changed for 15 decades or so. The number of cases filed with it has (and with the federal system generally). But the supreme court’s capacity has remained the same.
And I know that’s partly because the circuit courts have taken on the workload that the high court might have been involved with more directly in, say 1820. But is that the *ideal* system?
For example, if the kind of decisions the supreme court would originally have made are made at the circuit level now anyway, with the supreme court more or less just mediating high level conflicts, maybe it would make more sense to have a rotating jury of circuit court judges come up to do it, and call them the supreme court.
Or something else. Because, again, what we got now seems busted.
I think we need to rethink the Supreme Court, and lifetime appointments. I’m not sure that I’m against court packing.
This. The system is really broken. So this:
No one seems to defend it as an objectively good idea for the health of the Supreme Court
… I would quibble with.
It does seem like this ultra-high-stakes 9 lifetime appointments system we’re locking into right now is maybe not the objectively ideal approach.
Now, simply packing another 10 or 50 or 100 seats in there wouldn’t necessarily fix everything, but I’m not sure it would hurt. It would lower the partisan appointment stakes, increase capacity, allow specialization, etc. Who knows.
After all, I’m not actually sure it makes sense that the size of the court hasn’t changed for 15 decades or so. The number of cases filed with it has (and with the federal system generally). But the supreme court’s capacity has remained the same.
And I know that’s partly because the circuit courts have taken on the workload that the high court might have been involved with more directly in, say 1820. But is that the *ideal* system?
For example, if the kind of decisions the supreme court would originally have made are made at the circuit level now anyway, with the supreme court more or less just mediating high level conflicts, maybe it would make more sense to have a rotating jury of circuit court judges come up to do it, and call them the supreme court.
Or something else. Because, again, what we got now seems busted.
liberal_japonicus: “Why shouldn’t the Dems not let Trump nominate someone, just as the Republicans did?… is there some reason why court packing is turned to and the fight over the nominee is taken as a ‘well, let’s make the best of this?'”
Because the Republicans had a majority in the Senate then and have a majority in the Senate now. If the Democrats had a majority in the Senate they could play McConnell’s game, but they don’t.
liberal_japonicus: “Why shouldn’t the Dems not let Trump nominate someone, just as the Republicans did?… is there some reason why court packing is turned to and the fight over the nominee is taken as a ‘well, let’s make the best of this?'”
Because the Republicans had a majority in the Senate then and have a majority in the Senate now. If the Democrats had a majority in the Senate they could play McConnell’s game, but they don’t.
Jack “… I would quibble with.
It does seem like this ultra-high-stakes 9 lifetime appointments system we’re locking into right now is maybe not the objectively ideal approach.”
In my view a lot of the problem is “ultra-high-stakes”. We’ve essentially given up on the amendment system, and decided that amending the Constitution (even on big changes) through judicial ‘interpretation’ is the way to go. That looks like the root of the problem to me. Systemically, Congress is supposed to do its thing until super-majorities amend the Constitution to remove it from Congressional purview. By essentially letting the Supreme Court amend the Constitution, and relying on them to do so in more and more cases you end up with super-majority like authority being wielded by 5 individuals to regularly overrule democratic majorities. There is also the question of what judges are supposed to do. If they are just another wholly political branch, it isn’t clear why we should give them any power to overrule Congress at all. I tend to think we should have an ethos of trying to really cleave to the Constitution with the idea that changes to it come through the amendment process, but that is pretty pie in the sky at this point.
But at this point I don’t know how we rein it in. Having a regular rotation of replacements (18 year terms?) would take some of the pressure off by making it less of a lottery whether or not Presidents got appointments. But ultimately we need to decide that Congress needs to take more charge of changing things, and that amending the Constitution on important issues is important.
Jack “… I would quibble with.
It does seem like this ultra-high-stakes 9 lifetime appointments system we’re locking into right now is maybe not the objectively ideal approach.”
In my view a lot of the problem is “ultra-high-stakes”. We’ve essentially given up on the amendment system, and decided that amending the Constitution (even on big changes) through judicial ‘interpretation’ is the way to go. That looks like the root of the problem to me. Systemically, Congress is supposed to do its thing until super-majorities amend the Constitution to remove it from Congressional purview. By essentially letting the Supreme Court amend the Constitution, and relying on them to do so in more and more cases you end up with super-majority like authority being wielded by 5 individuals to regularly overrule democratic majorities. There is also the question of what judges are supposed to do. If they are just another wholly political branch, it isn’t clear why we should give them any power to overrule Congress at all. I tend to think we should have an ethos of trying to really cleave to the Constitution with the idea that changes to it come through the amendment process, but that is pretty pie in the sky at this point.
But at this point I don’t know how we rein it in. Having a regular rotation of replacements (18 year terms?) would take some of the pressure off by making it less of a lottery whether or not Presidents got appointments. But ultimately we need to decide that Congress needs to take more charge of changing things, and that amending the Constitution on important issues is important.
Of course, the Dems don’t have the same tools, but I’m assuming that they must have some and there should be pressure on Flake and others like him.
No, Democrats don’t have the same tools. McConnell had the Senate. We can’t do what McConnell did, until further notice. Sad, I know. I wish too.
I think we will be hugely fortunate if we win the Senate. We should work really hard for that. And then we should be as hard ass as possible, because short of that is war. And that is the segue to:
absent that, the wheels come off. i have no idea what that looks like, ultimately. it probably will not look like any one thing, it’ll be disorder, and other orders good and bad will emerge.
It will look like Syria, if we fight. If we don’t fight, it will look like perpetual Nazi Germany.
Do you see now why I [in Obama times] favore helping countries who were fighting against incredible odds? Because without help, they were f’d. I hope that doesn’t happen to us, but I fear it. Syria used to be a nice place. I talked to my refugee Bosnian friend who used to vacation there.
Of course, the Dems don’t have the same tools, but I’m assuming that they must have some and there should be pressure on Flake and others like him.
No, Democrats don’t have the same tools. McConnell had the Senate. We can’t do what McConnell did, until further notice. Sad, I know. I wish too.
I think we will be hugely fortunate if we win the Senate. We should work really hard for that. And then we should be as hard ass as possible, because short of that is war. And that is the segue to:
absent that, the wheels come off. i have no idea what that looks like, ultimately. it probably will not look like any one thing, it’ll be disorder, and other orders good and bad will emerge.
It will look like Syria, if we fight. If we don’t fight, it will look like perpetual Nazi Germany.
Do you see now why I [in Obama times] favore helping countries who were fighting against incredible odds? Because without help, they were f’d. I hope that doesn’t happen to us, but I fear it. Syria used to be a nice place. I talked to my refugee Bosnian friend who used to vacation there.
If we are going to get through all this we probably need to accept even reluctant sort-of allies.
Who is “we” kimosabe? You, Sebastian, have consistently supported “those who brung you”, and here you are. I am surprised you are surprised.
But let’s play the game you lay out:
Scenario 1: Sure. AND you aggressively fill lower courts with liberal firebrands no older than 40. You also expand the federal courts and add more judges (I believe this is an institutional priority due to workloads).
Scenario 1b: Well sure. OK
Scenario 2: Don’t quite understand how you are blocked but can still “break” things. So depends on what combination of “don’t control” you assume.
Scenario 3a, 3b: Either is OK by me. The GOP has shown that 3b is an effective political strategy. So don’t see your point here.
If we are going to get through all this we probably need to accept even reluctant sort-of allies.
Who is “we” kimosabe? You, Sebastian, have consistently supported “those who brung you”, and here you are. I am surprised you are surprised.
But let’s play the game you lay out:
Scenario 1: Sure. AND you aggressively fill lower courts with liberal firebrands no older than 40. You also expand the federal courts and add more judges (I believe this is an institutional priority due to workloads).
Scenario 1b: Well sure. OK
Scenario 2: Don’t quite understand how you are blocked but can still “break” things. So depends on what combination of “don’t control” you assume.
Scenario 3a, 3b: Either is OK by me. The GOP has shown that 3b is an effective political strategy. So don’t see your point here.
Our Constitution, which I have for most of my life held up like the Torah, is not up to what’s happening now.
I don’t think the Constitution is a holy document even on its best days (I’m not sure Jefferson’s idea for throwing it out and rewriting it every generation was half bad), but what’s actually kind of infuriating to me is that it *was* up to handling this.
What hasn’t been up to it are the people. The actual human beings who are supposed to be responsible for its care.
For example, this was exactly the sort of thing the electoral college is supposed to prevent. Yet on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December the electors — actual thinking human beings every one of them, by design — and rubber stamped the thing like automatons.
Failing that, there’s like, an emoluments clause. Or there used to be. I’m not sure how it’s enforced — I suppose nobody is — but I’d think at minimum that all the humans in Congress and the Court that took their own oaths seriously should never have allowed this President to mouth the empty words that formed his.
And then there’s impeachment. High crimes and misdemeanors isn’t actually that exclusive. It’s an old term of art that pretty much means any kind of shenanigans whatsoever. There’s been shenanigans aplenty. Enough to have a trial for the good of the republic and at least see if anything sticks. But the humans who could do that — even a lot of Democrats — don’t think it’s worth fussing about.
It’s like a bunch of peaceful medieval villagers finally getting raided by vikings and then refusing to pick up or use any of the weapons from the village’s well-stocked armory. The swords and spears their ancestors carefully packed away in that armory for *exactly* this kind of eventuality.
Nope. Everyone is so used to trudging along mindlessly tending their parochial little plots and having everything more or less work out, that they just say, “Why would we do that? We *never* use those swords for anything…”
Our Constitution, which I have for most of my life held up like the Torah, is not up to what’s happening now.
I don’t think the Constitution is a holy document even on its best days (I’m not sure Jefferson’s idea for throwing it out and rewriting it every generation was half bad), but what’s actually kind of infuriating to me is that it *was* up to handling this.
What hasn’t been up to it are the people. The actual human beings who are supposed to be responsible for its care.
For example, this was exactly the sort of thing the electoral college is supposed to prevent. Yet on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December the electors — actual thinking human beings every one of them, by design — and rubber stamped the thing like automatons.
Failing that, there’s like, an emoluments clause. Or there used to be. I’m not sure how it’s enforced — I suppose nobody is — but I’d think at minimum that all the humans in Congress and the Court that took their own oaths seriously should never have allowed this President to mouth the empty words that formed his.
And then there’s impeachment. High crimes and misdemeanors isn’t actually that exclusive. It’s an old term of art that pretty much means any kind of shenanigans whatsoever. There’s been shenanigans aplenty. Enough to have a trial for the good of the republic and at least see if anything sticks. But the humans who could do that — even a lot of Democrats — don’t think it’s worth fussing about.
It’s like a bunch of peaceful medieval villagers finally getting raided by vikings and then refusing to pick up or use any of the weapons from the village’s well-stocked armory. The swords and spears their ancestors carefully packed away in that armory for *exactly* this kind of eventuality.
Nope. Everyone is so used to trudging along mindlessly tending their parochial little plots and having everything more or less work out, that they just say, “Why would we do that? We *never* use those swords for anything…”
You are absolutely right, jack lecou. Thanks for that.
You are absolutely right, jack lecou. Thanks for that.
People, under the electoral college rules (with possible interference), elected treason.
People, under the electoral college rules (with possible interference), elected treason.
“The GOP has shown that 3b is an effective political strategy. So don’t see your point here.”
They’ve shown its a pretty effective political strategy at breaking the country.
“The GOP has shown that 3b is an effective political strategy. So don’t see your point here.”
They’ve shown its a pretty effective political strategy at breaking the country.
As I recall, the intent of lifetime appointments was to insulate the courts from politics. And in that it was somewhat successful. See, for example, the number of decisions that have gone against Trump by judges appointed by Bush, Reagan, etc.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has lately chosen to embrace politics rather than stay insulated from it. To my mind, the question is how we get the Court to step back again.
If we’re unlucky, that will require a complete personnel turnover. But maybe we’ll only need to replace a couple. Here’s hoping.
As I recall, the intent of lifetime appointments was to insulate the courts from politics. And in that it was somewhat successful. See, for example, the number of decisions that have gone against Trump by judges appointed by Bush, Reagan, etc.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has lately chosen to embrace politics rather than stay insulated from it. To my mind, the question is how we get the Court to step back again.
If we’re unlucky, that will require a complete personnel turnover. But maybe we’ll only need to replace a couple. Here’s hoping.
We are fucked. I will keep donating and voting of course but I ahve no hope for the future.
We are fucked. I will keep donating and voting of course but I ahve no hope for the future.
“Who is “we” kimosabe? You, Sebastian, have consistently supported “those who brung you”, and here you are. I am surprised you are surprised.”
You’ve consistently supported the heighten the contradictions strategies and maximal divisiveness strategies, and here you are…
But we are probably in dire enough straits that we have to put up with people who aren’t perfect. So I’m still happy to work with you.
“Who is “we” kimosabe? You, Sebastian, have consistently supported “those who brung you”, and here you are. I am surprised you are surprised.”
You’ve consistently supported the heighten the contradictions strategies and maximal divisiveness strategies, and here you are…
But we are probably in dire enough straits that we have to put up with people who aren’t perfect. So I’m still happy to work with you.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/democrats-risky-longshot-blocking-trumps-next-supreme-court-pick-214353853.html
but this is unlikely as the article points out
For one thing, 10 Democratic senators are running for reelection in states that Trump won in 2016, and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Joe Donnelly of Indiana all voted to confirm Gorsuch. Would every one of these at-risk senators be willing to imperil their reelection chances by striking over Trump’s next nominee? Democrats can’t afford a single defection.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/democrats-risky-longshot-blocking-trumps-next-supreme-court-pick-214353853.html
but this is unlikely as the article points out
For one thing, 10 Democratic senators are running for reelection in states that Trump won in 2016, and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Joe Donnelly of Indiana all voted to confirm Gorsuch. Would every one of these at-risk senators be willing to imperil their reelection chances by striking over Trump’s next nominee? Democrats can’t afford a single defection.
wonkie, you have to hope. We have to hope.
You saw my prediction, either perpetual Nazi or Syria. But stuff might happen. And we can work to be on that side.
wonkie, you have to hope. We have to hope.
You saw my prediction, either perpetual Nazi or Syria. But stuff might happen. And we can work to be on that side.
…at minimum that all the humans in Congress and the Court that took their own oaths seriously… [emphasis added]
And there we have the core problem. There have always been those who valued power above honor. But now they seem to constitute a majority in the Congress. And that’s something that a system which bothers to have officials take an oath of office is ill equipped to deal with.
…at minimum that all the humans in Congress and the Court that took their own oaths seriously… [emphasis added]
And there we have the core problem. There have always been those who valued power above honor. But now they seem to constitute a majority in the Congress. And that’s something that a system which bothers to have officials take an oath of office is ill equipped to deal with.
They’ve shown its a pretty effective political strategy at breaking the country.
Indeed, the Republicans have consistently proven *highly* effective at breaking the country – and any semblance of decency or responsible government – over at least the last 4 decades or so.
I’m not sure that unilateral disarmament on the other side is the way to fight that. I think it’s been tried. The Ds sticking to the rules of restraint and fair play in the face of the Viking raids has basically just let the Rs wreck things that much faster.
I mean, scenario 3 is basically where the Rs have been living for some time. And what with demographic changes, are probably doomed to live out the rest of their current metamorphosis.
And what they have shown us is that being on a knife edge is *exactly* the time to deploy all the dirty tricks you can. In fact, with enough supreme court seats, you can apparently gerrymander and vote suppress your way into power from the wrong side of the majority altogether.
They’ve shown its a pretty effective political strategy at breaking the country.
Indeed, the Republicans have consistently proven *highly* effective at breaking the country – and any semblance of decency or responsible government – over at least the last 4 decades or so.
I’m not sure that unilateral disarmament on the other side is the way to fight that. I think it’s been tried. The Ds sticking to the rules of restraint and fair play in the face of the Viking raids has basically just let the Rs wreck things that much faster.
I mean, scenario 3 is basically where the Rs have been living for some time. And what with demographic changes, are probably doomed to live out the rest of their current metamorphosis.
And what they have shown us is that being on a knife edge is *exactly* the time to deploy all the dirty tricks you can. In fact, with enough supreme court seats, you can apparently gerrymander and vote suppress your way into power from the wrong side of the majority altogether.
For those of you who say we have little or no hope, consider this. The worst crisis in our nation’s history was brought on by those who were willing to break the country if they couldn’t control it. They failed — the cost was enormous, but they failed.
A century and a half later, their spiritual and philosophical (and in many cases, I suspect, genetic) descendants are having another go. But the rest of us beat them once, and we can do it again. It won’t be easy, or cheap, but it can be done.
For those of you who say we have little or no hope, consider this. The worst crisis in our nation’s history was brought on by those who were willing to break the country if they couldn’t control it. They failed — the cost was enormous, but they failed.
A century and a half later, their spiritual and philosophical (and in many cases, I suspect, genetic) descendants are having another go. But the rest of us beat them once, and we can do it again. It won’t be easy, or cheap, but it can be done.
Talking breezily about ‘unilateral disarmament’ isn’t particularly helpful. I’m pretty sure a concerted effort to kidnap, rape, torture to death the children of prominent Republicans could have a strong effect, but at that point why bother winning? There is worrying about ‘restraint’ and there is acting in ways which fundamentally attack the ability to keep having a functioning government. Saying “they aren’t trying to have a functioning government” is a reason to defeat them, not a reason to attack the ability of having a functioning government.
It would probably be better to totally remove the ability of the Court to overrule Congress than it would be to leave the Court the ability to overrule Congress and act to fully legitimize politicizing it.
“And what they have shown us is that being on a knife edge is *exactly* the time to deploy all the dirty tricks you can.”
I’m not sure we can survive ONE party that thinks this is true.
I’m completely certain we can’t survive BOTH parties that think this true.
Talking breezily about ‘unilateral disarmament’ isn’t particularly helpful. I’m pretty sure a concerted effort to kidnap, rape, torture to death the children of prominent Republicans could have a strong effect, but at that point why bother winning? There is worrying about ‘restraint’ and there is acting in ways which fundamentally attack the ability to keep having a functioning government. Saying “they aren’t trying to have a functioning government” is a reason to defeat them, not a reason to attack the ability of having a functioning government.
It would probably be better to totally remove the ability of the Court to overrule Congress than it would be to leave the Court the ability to overrule Congress and act to fully legitimize politicizing it.
“And what they have shown us is that being on a knife edge is *exactly* the time to deploy all the dirty tricks you can.”
I’m not sure we can survive ONE party that thinks this is true.
I’m completely certain we can’t survive BOTH parties that think this true.
We’ve essentially given up on the amendment system, and decided that amending the Constitution (even on big changes) through judicial ‘interpretation’ is the way to go.
I’m with you on re-normalizing amendments. I think it’s really weird that we’ve somehow just decided these can’t happen anymore (or don’t need to, or…? Like I said. It’s weird.)
But I disagree that that’s the problem with the courts. Like, Abood/Janus is a good example.
Sure. We *could* decide to have a constitutional amendment to enshrine labor rights. That’d be great. And that would presumably have settled the Janus issue.
But it’s actually kind of crazy to do that for every slightly tricky question that comes up. The US Constitution is a little on the terse side, sure, but incorporation of all the clarifications and caveats embodied in all the umpteen billion pages of interpretational case law would push it a bit over to the other side.
In some cases, and Abood is a pretty good example, it’s perfectly sensible for the courts to make those kind of little annotations in the margins without changing the body text. It was a perfectly sensible decision that had worked fine for years.
Janus, OTOH, was a frankly ludicrous case, whose issues had been considered and dismissed 40 years ago. It was quickly and rightfully dismissed by the lower courts as ‘nothing new to see here’. And it should have stayed that way. The court entertaining it at all — and they’ve been signaling they’d like to do something like it for awhile — was purely because public sector unions are politically and ideologically inconvenient for the party now in control of the court.
That partisan control of the court isn’t some kind of accident, or some kind of spillover effect because otherwise sober jurists have been poisoned by all our overly harsh partisan discourse our here or something. It was the *plan*. A cadre of loyal, litmus-tested partisans on the bench is one of the key cavalry formations in the Rs little army.
We’ve essentially given up on the amendment system, and decided that amending the Constitution (even on big changes) through judicial ‘interpretation’ is the way to go.
I’m with you on re-normalizing amendments. I think it’s really weird that we’ve somehow just decided these can’t happen anymore (or don’t need to, or…? Like I said. It’s weird.)
But I disagree that that’s the problem with the courts. Like, Abood/Janus is a good example.
Sure. We *could* decide to have a constitutional amendment to enshrine labor rights. That’d be great. And that would presumably have settled the Janus issue.
But it’s actually kind of crazy to do that for every slightly tricky question that comes up. The US Constitution is a little on the terse side, sure, but incorporation of all the clarifications and caveats embodied in all the umpteen billion pages of interpretational case law would push it a bit over to the other side.
In some cases, and Abood is a pretty good example, it’s perfectly sensible for the courts to make those kind of little annotations in the margins without changing the body text. It was a perfectly sensible decision that had worked fine for years.
Janus, OTOH, was a frankly ludicrous case, whose issues had been considered and dismissed 40 years ago. It was quickly and rightfully dismissed by the lower courts as ‘nothing new to see here’. And it should have stayed that way. The court entertaining it at all — and they’ve been signaling they’d like to do something like it for awhile — was purely because public sector unions are politically and ideologically inconvenient for the party now in control of the court.
That partisan control of the court isn’t some kind of accident, or some kind of spillover effect because otherwise sober jurists have been poisoned by all our overly harsh partisan discourse our here or something. It was the *plan*. A cadre of loyal, litmus-tested partisans on the bench is one of the key cavalry formations in the Rs little army.
It would probably be better to totally remove the ability of the Court to overrule Congress than it would be to leave the Court the ability to overrule Congress and act to fully legitimize politicizing it.
This is the thing though.
Rolling over and letting the McConnell Maneuver stand already fully legitimizes it.
Proceeding along, business as usual, while Rs appoint a sequence of naked partisans via dirty tricks — and Ds optimistically nominate moderate jurists with experience that subsequently get blocked — isn’t going to make people think oh, gee, I guess appointing nakedly partisan justices isn’t legitimate anymore.
It’s just going to result in a court in 2059 that has like 9 Ross Douthat clones on it or something, and everyone thinking that’s totally normal.
The problem is that it’s already legitimized. It’s too late. The way to delegitimize it would have been to *fight* it, by, I dunno, giving Merrick Garland a hammer, a nail, and a brass nameplate and telling him to walk in to 1 First St NE and tack it to an office that looked nice to him.
That wouldn’t break the country *more*. It would break the country less than the alternative (which is where we live now).
It would probably be better to totally remove the ability of the Court to overrule Congress than it would be to leave the Court the ability to overrule Congress and act to fully legitimize politicizing it.
This is the thing though.
Rolling over and letting the McConnell Maneuver stand already fully legitimizes it.
Proceeding along, business as usual, while Rs appoint a sequence of naked partisans via dirty tricks — and Ds optimistically nominate moderate jurists with experience that subsequently get blocked — isn’t going to make people think oh, gee, I guess appointing nakedly partisan justices isn’t legitimate anymore.
It’s just going to result in a court in 2059 that has like 9 Ross Douthat clones on it or something, and everyone thinking that’s totally normal.
The problem is that it’s already legitimized. It’s too late. The way to delegitimize it would have been to *fight* it, by, I dunno, giving Merrick Garland a hammer, a nail, and a brass nameplate and telling him to walk in to 1 First St NE and tack it to an office that looked nice to him.
That wouldn’t break the country *more*. It would break the country less than the alternative (which is where we live now).
Or to put this another way:
Let’s imagine this country is like a big tensegrity sculpture held together by structural members, like the constitution, but also little bits of string and cable we call “norms”.
The Red Team has been busy sawing through those norms for about 40 years. At this point, it looks like some really important bits might be falling off.
The Blue Team response has largely been either “Oh, it’s no big deal.” or “Oh dear, this is bad, but nothing can be done.”
That’s the unilateral disarmament.
The alternative I’m proposing is not that Blue pick up a knife and help Red saw. I’m suggesting they get some duct tape, wrap Red up in a ball of it while taking his damn knife away, and then try to tape some of the sawn off bits back together.
Using duct tape is a dirty, unseemly, extraordinary measure. And in the end, our sculpture is not going to look exactly as sleek as before, what with all the tape patches. But it’ll be standing.
And that’s better than just pretending things are normal while things collapse as more and more bits get sawn off.
(And who knows – once we have Red safely taped up, maybe we can get out the crimps and cable and make some proper repairs. Even improvements.)
Or to put this another way:
Let’s imagine this country is like a big tensegrity sculpture held together by structural members, like the constitution, but also little bits of string and cable we call “norms”.
The Red Team has been busy sawing through those norms for about 40 years. At this point, it looks like some really important bits might be falling off.
The Blue Team response has largely been either “Oh, it’s no big deal.” or “Oh dear, this is bad, but nothing can be done.”
That’s the unilateral disarmament.
The alternative I’m proposing is not that Blue pick up a knife and help Red saw. I’m suggesting they get some duct tape, wrap Red up in a ball of it while taking his damn knife away, and then try to tape some of the sawn off bits back together.
Using duct tape is a dirty, unseemly, extraordinary measure. And in the end, our sculpture is not going to look exactly as sleek as before, what with all the tape patches. But it’ll be standing.
And that’s better than just pretending things are normal while things collapse as more and more bits get sawn off.
(And who knows – once we have Red safely taped up, maybe we can get out the crimps and cable and make some proper repairs. Even improvements.)
You’ve consistently supported the heighten the contradictions strategies and maximal divisiveness strategies, and here you are..
This is a slur. Fuck you.
You’ve consistently supported the heighten the contradictions strategies and maximal divisiveness strategies, and here you are..
This is a slur. Fuck you.
My apologies. That was written in anger and haste. I have consistently derided the so-called “heighten the contradictions” strategy. This is not to say that I am much further to the left than most of the population. I am acutely aware of this.
But I will not stand for deliberate and dishonest mischaracterization of my “political strategy” analysis, mistaken as it may be.
I have consistently pushed for the “left” to push the Democratic Party “further left”.
‘Nuff said.
But: Fuses are getting short. Of this there does not appear to be any doubt.
Thank you.
My apologies. That was written in anger and haste. I have consistently derided the so-called “heighten the contradictions” strategy. This is not to say that I am much further to the left than most of the population. I am acutely aware of this.
But I will not stand for deliberate and dishonest mischaracterization of my “political strategy” analysis, mistaken as it may be.
I have consistently pushed for the “left” to push the Democratic Party “further left”.
‘Nuff said.
But: Fuses are getting short. Of this there does not appear to be any doubt.
Thank you.
The alternative I’m proposing is not that Blue pick up a knife and help Red saw. I’m suggesting they get some duct tape, wrap Red up in a ball of it while taking his damn knife away, and then try to tape some of the sawn off bits back together.
Jack, I love your stuff, and support you 100%, but I am at a loss as to what this means regarding a political strategy going forward for Dem Congresscritters and Senators. In the House, they can do nothing absent holding the Speakership. And in the Senate, the GOP is bent on turning it into a institution where untrammeled majoritarian rule is the norm (not that I object in principle).
Seems to me the only way they can gum things up is to win more elections.
The alternative I’m proposing is not that Blue pick up a knife and help Red saw. I’m suggesting they get some duct tape, wrap Red up in a ball of it while taking his damn knife away, and then try to tape some of the sawn off bits back together.
Jack, I love your stuff, and support you 100%, but I am at a loss as to what this means regarding a political strategy going forward for Dem Congresscritters and Senators. In the House, they can do nothing absent holding the Speakership. And in the Senate, the GOP is bent on turning it into a institution where untrammeled majoritarian rule is the norm (not that I object in principle).
Seems to me the only way they can gum things up is to win more elections.
Trying not to fill up the whole thread, but one last one:
Sebastian, I think what’s been bugging me about scenario 3 — and I think I was trying to put my finger on this with the thing about knife edges and timing — is that it’s sort of leaning heavily on the fallacy that control of the courts is just a capture-the-flag token with no real consequences. In particular, with no electoral consequences.
Bush v. Gore should certainly have taught us that’s not true. And if not, it’s looking depressingly like a series of voter suppression, union suppression, and gerrymandering cases might drive the lesson home.
But if you replace the assumption that the court is just some kind of trophy that sits there making orthogonal decisions until it changes hands with the fact that it makes electorally relevant decisions, then scenario 3b isn’t quite the “pointlessly take control of the court only to lose it in the next narrow election and set a new precedent for Rs to abuse” you made it out to be.
Scenario 3b is just as likely to be “take control of the court in order to undo a bunch of unjust decisions and restore voting rights, fix gerrymandered districts, maybe get some more money out of politics, and then win the next election in a landslide because the goddamn election results actually comport with the popular vote for a change”.
And yeah, I’ll concede that wouldn’t be the prettiest way to do that. But the point you were making wasn’t about the aesthetics, it was about effectiveness. You didn’t say 3b was bad because it would work but it wasn’t nice, I think you were saying 3b was bad because it would pointlessly backfire.
Not nice but effective puts a rather different complexion on it.
Trying not to fill up the whole thread, but one last one:
Sebastian, I think what’s been bugging me about scenario 3 — and I think I was trying to put my finger on this with the thing about knife edges and timing — is that it’s sort of leaning heavily on the fallacy that control of the courts is just a capture-the-flag token with no real consequences. In particular, with no electoral consequences.
Bush v. Gore should certainly have taught us that’s not true. And if not, it’s looking depressingly like a series of voter suppression, union suppression, and gerrymandering cases might drive the lesson home.
But if you replace the assumption that the court is just some kind of trophy that sits there making orthogonal decisions until it changes hands with the fact that it makes electorally relevant decisions, then scenario 3b isn’t quite the “pointlessly take control of the court only to lose it in the next narrow election and set a new precedent for Rs to abuse” you made it out to be.
Scenario 3b is just as likely to be “take control of the court in order to undo a bunch of unjust decisions and restore voting rights, fix gerrymandered districts, maybe get some more money out of politics, and then win the next election in a landslide because the goddamn election results actually comport with the popular vote for a change”.
And yeah, I’ll concede that wouldn’t be the prettiest way to do that. But the point you were making wasn’t about the aesthetics, it was about effectiveness. You didn’t say 3b was bad because it would work but it wasn’t nice, I think you were saying 3b was bad because it would pointlessly backfire.
Not nice but effective puts a rather different complexion on it.
“Seems to me the only way they can gum things up is to win more elections.”
That would be the best idea, yes.
“Seems to me the only way they can gum things up is to win more elections.”
That would be the best idea, yes.
Seems to me the only way they can gum things up is to win more elections.
Well, yes. That’s what happens when one side has power and isn’t afraid to use it.
And the most practical and helpful thing to do is, as ever, to go out and grassroots organize and recruit exciting new candidates and so forth and try to win an election. Which is happening to an inspiring degree.
But what I’m getting at here is that when and if we do win and get another turn, everyone needs to remember that the other side isn’t playing a genteel little game of checkers or whatever. They’ve not only flipped the board over, they pulled a knife and started cutting people. It’s not a game at all anymore (if it ever was).
We don’t necessarily have to draw a knife and do any murders in response, but we do have to stop pretending that everything is normal and we’re all still just playing checkers. And then take actions proportional to the threat.
Hopefully it’s not too late. Obviously a lot of this crap from the Red team is specifically designed to tilt the field so far over that they can maintain power even as their electoral minority shrinks ever smaller.
Intellectually, I suspect that’s still a losing strategy. In the long term. Emotionally, I’m a little less sanguine at the moment. And worried about how far they’ll actually go if the gentle power grab techniques they’ve been using so far start losing their potency. When there’s enough insecure totalitarian a-holes in the halls of power, mere knife fights can escalate to firing squads and battle tanks in the streets remarkably quickly.
And ether way, the long term is a long way away. In the recent past, 4000 Americans died in the aftermath of a hurricane and nobody blinked. In the short term, they’ve been locking kids in cages and Trump apparently has a 45% approval rating. In just the medium term even more people are going to suffer and die…
Sorry. It’s been a long day.
Seems to me the only way they can gum things up is to win more elections.
Well, yes. That’s what happens when one side has power and isn’t afraid to use it.
And the most practical and helpful thing to do is, as ever, to go out and grassroots organize and recruit exciting new candidates and so forth and try to win an election. Which is happening to an inspiring degree.
But what I’m getting at here is that when and if we do win and get another turn, everyone needs to remember that the other side isn’t playing a genteel little game of checkers or whatever. They’ve not only flipped the board over, they pulled a knife and started cutting people. It’s not a game at all anymore (if it ever was).
We don’t necessarily have to draw a knife and do any murders in response, but we do have to stop pretending that everything is normal and we’re all still just playing checkers. And then take actions proportional to the threat.
Hopefully it’s not too late. Obviously a lot of this crap from the Red team is specifically designed to tilt the field so far over that they can maintain power even as their electoral minority shrinks ever smaller.
Intellectually, I suspect that’s still a losing strategy. In the long term. Emotionally, I’m a little less sanguine at the moment. And worried about how far they’ll actually go if the gentle power grab techniques they’ve been using so far start losing their potency. When there’s enough insecure totalitarian a-holes in the halls of power, mere knife fights can escalate to firing squads and battle tanks in the streets remarkably quickly.
And ether way, the long term is a long way away. In the recent past, 4000 Americans died in the aftermath of a hurricane and nobody blinked. In the short term, they’ve been locking kids in cages and Trump apparently has a 45% approval rating. In just the medium term even more people are going to suffer and die…
Sorry. It’s been a long day.
My first reaction to the news (after: 1.fake news and 2.oh digestive final product) was ‘he is showing his true colors by retiring NOW’.
He knows very well that, the way things are, the GOP will get a replacement through before there is chance of losing the senate in November. Either he does not give a vulgar term for intercourse or he actively wants a RWNJ as successor. In either case [insert incivil expression here]!
My first reaction to the news (after: 1.fake news and 2.oh digestive final product) was ‘he is showing his true colors by retiring NOW’.
He knows very well that, the way things are, the GOP will get a replacement through before there is chance of losing the senate in November. Either he does not give a vulgar term for intercourse or he actively wants a RWNJ as successor. In either case [insert incivil expression here]!
The problem I foresee with scenario 3a is: Democrats put their efforts into 3-4 major policy bills, only to see them gutted by the Supreme Court after the next election, by which time Republicans are in control of at least one house and able to block both fixing the laws and fixing the court. What value then was 3a? See: 2010 election, ACA.
The problem I foresee with scenario 3a is: Democrats put their efforts into 3-4 major policy bills, only to see them gutted by the Supreme Court after the next election, by which time Republicans are in control of at least one house and able to block both fixing the laws and fixing the court. What value then was 3a? See: 2010 election, ACA.
This is just to say that I think jack lecou’s @12.14 metaphor of the intensegrity sculpture and its ongoing dismemberment is pretty much perfect.
This is just to say that I think jack lecou’s @12.14 metaphor of the intensegrity sculpture and its ongoing dismemberment is pretty much perfect.
“tensegrity”! Probably a Freudian slip (it was a new word to me, I had to look it up).
“tensegrity”! Probably a Freudian slip (it was a new word to me, I had to look it up).
Democracy in the USA is broken.
The Republican party holds the presidency despite its candidate getting 3 million fewer votes than his opponent. It has held the presidency in three out of five terms this century despite winning the popular vote only once.
The Republican part controls the Senate despite its candidates winning 19 million fewer votes in the three elections which have determine its current membership.
The US constitution provides that Supreme Court justices should be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The intention of the drafters was surely that the constitution of the Supreme Court should broadly reflect the will of the people.
It would be contrary to the will of the people for another right-wing justice to be appointed. It’s time for the Democratic Party to make a stand for democracy. It should refuse all co-operation with the appointment process unless Trump nominates a moderate candidate – Merrick Garland would be a suitable choice.
If it has to close down the Senate to prevent an appointment, so be it. With McCain absent, the Republican Party will be unable to muster a quorum.
It’s time to make a stand for what is right.
Democracy in the USA is broken.
The Republican party holds the presidency despite its candidate getting 3 million fewer votes than his opponent. It has held the presidency in three out of five terms this century despite winning the popular vote only once.
The Republican part controls the Senate despite its candidates winning 19 million fewer votes in the three elections which have determine its current membership.
The US constitution provides that Supreme Court justices should be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The intention of the drafters was surely that the constitution of the Supreme Court should broadly reflect the will of the people.
It would be contrary to the will of the people for another right-wing justice to be appointed. It’s time for the Democratic Party to make a stand for democracy. It should refuse all co-operation with the appointment process unless Trump nominates a moderate candidate – Merrick Garland would be a suitable choice.
If it has to close down the Senate to prevent an appointment, so be it. With McCain absent, the Republican Party will be unable to muster a quorum.
It’s time to make a stand for what is right.
let’s hope RBG is immortal
let’s hope RBG is immortal
The trouble with Scenario 1a is that Congress doesn’t control everything. Lots of the GOP nastiness happens at the state level, and the conservative court will endorse it no matter what Congress does.
The trouble with Scenario 1b is that you won’t know if the court is obstructing things for several years, at which time it may well be too late.
As for amending the Constitution, there is a reason it’s not used to make substantive changes. The reason is that it doesn’t work. It never worked very well for that purpose. We have twenty-seven amendments, of which ten are really part of the original Constitution and three required a war to pass. At least five of the rest are anodyne procedural changes and clarifications.
Besides, in today’s environment getting 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify anything other than the simplest most innocuous measure seems impossible.
The trouble with Scenario 1a is that Congress doesn’t control everything. Lots of the GOP nastiness happens at the state level, and the conservative court will endorse it no matter what Congress does.
The trouble with Scenario 1b is that you won’t know if the court is obstructing things for several years, at which time it may well be too late.
As for amending the Constitution, there is a reason it’s not used to make substantive changes. The reason is that it doesn’t work. It never worked very well for that purpose. We have twenty-seven amendments, of which ten are really part of the original Constitution and three required a war to pass. At least five of the rest are anodyne procedural changes and clarifications.
Besides, in today’s environment getting 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify anything other than the simplest most innocuous measure seems impossible.
on the other hand, the NC GOP is giddily putting amendments to the NC constitution on the Nov ballot in order to entice its dipshit voters to come to the polls.
we’re going to have an amendment that preserves the right to hunt and fish using “traditional methods” ! something absolutely nobody was clamoring for.
on the other hand, the NC GOP is giddily putting amendments to the NC constitution on the Nov ballot in order to entice its dipshit voters to come to the polls.
we’re going to have an amendment that preserves the right to hunt and fish using “traditional methods” ! something absolutely nobody was clamoring for.
On the matter of the court, I do like the idea of the 18-year term, though there are details to be attended to, mostly what happens with deaths and resignations. They would introduce some randomness into the process.
Another possibly worthwhile change would be to require a super-majority, 3/5 or even 2/3 to confirm a justice. That might reduce the number of pure partisans on the court.
A third would be to set a time limit – 120 days from nomination? – such that after that time any Senator can demand a vote and no business can be conducted until it is held. The objective here is transparency. The whole business of holds and whatever is obnoxious, as it lets Senators take action without being clearly accountable for it. Their job is to vote, so make them vote.
On the matter of the court, I do like the idea of the 18-year term, though there are details to be attended to, mostly what happens with deaths and resignations. They would introduce some randomness into the process.
Another possibly worthwhile change would be to require a super-majority, 3/5 or even 2/3 to confirm a justice. That might reduce the number of pure partisans on the court.
A third would be to set a time limit – 120 days from nomination? – such that after that time any Senator can demand a vote and no business can be conducted until it is held. The objective here is transparency. The whole business of holds and whatever is obnoxious, as it lets Senators take action without being clearly accountable for it. Their job is to vote, so make them vote.
We are watching a coup/ Republican voters are voting against representative government and voting in authoritarianism and they are doing it out of disrespect for everyone but themselves. I try to be reasonably polite when I discuss politics and I have Republican friends that I would like to stay friends wiht–but that is what they are doing. They watch Faux because they like the ego stroking of being told over and over that they are the good people and everyone else is bad. And for that ego stroking they are taking representative government away from everyone bu themselves and they are happily supporting policies that screw everyone but themselves. Nature is dying all over the planet and the are killing our natural areas. They are destroying everything hat is beautiful and good and doing it so they can congratulate themselves on being better Americans than everyone else. I think taht of all the vices a person can have, intellectual dishonesty is the one I find hardest to forgive and that is an essential component of the Republican perspective. They support politicians who lie because they are never honest with themselves about their own participation in public affairs. Trump appeals to their inner Nazi, but the Republican party has been making the same appeal more subtly for many years. I heard a British citizen discussing this on TV a couple days ago. She said she had not realized who many bad people there were in the US, that she had thought of us as a generous and optimistic nation and was surprised and the selfhishness and meanness. I guess I am not surprised, not when I think about it. Sinclair Lewis saw this coming a long time ago.
We are watching a coup/ Republican voters are voting against representative government and voting in authoritarianism and they are doing it out of disrespect for everyone but themselves. I try to be reasonably polite when I discuss politics and I have Republican friends that I would like to stay friends wiht–but that is what they are doing. They watch Faux because they like the ego stroking of being told over and over that they are the good people and everyone else is bad. And for that ego stroking they are taking representative government away from everyone bu themselves and they are happily supporting policies that screw everyone but themselves. Nature is dying all over the planet and the are killing our natural areas. They are destroying everything hat is beautiful and good and doing it so they can congratulate themselves on being better Americans than everyone else. I think taht of all the vices a person can have, intellectual dishonesty is the one I find hardest to forgive and that is an essential component of the Republican perspective. They support politicians who lie because they are never honest with themselves about their own participation in public affairs. Trump appeals to their inner Nazi, but the Republican party has been making the same appeal more subtly for many years. I heard a British citizen discussing this on TV a couple days ago. She said she had not realized who many bad people there were in the US, that she had thought of us as a generous and optimistic nation and was surprised and the selfhishness and meanness. I guess I am not surprised, not when I think about it. Sinclair Lewis saw this coming a long time ago.
If it has to close down the Senate to prevent an appointment, so be it. With McCain absent, the Republican Party will be unable to muster a quorum.
Under the Senate Rules, there is a presumption that a quorum is present unless a Senator in the chamber raises the question. If 50 Senators choose to sail along by voice votes, and avoid the very small number of situations where a roll call is required, how are you going to stop them? Cloture to end a filibuster is one of the things that requires a roll call; Supreme Court nominations can no longer be filibustered.
If it has to close down the Senate to prevent an appointment, so be it. With McCain absent, the Republican Party will be unable to muster a quorum.
Under the Senate Rules, there is a presumption that a quorum is present unless a Senator in the chamber raises the question. If 50 Senators choose to sail along by voice votes, and avoid the very small number of situations where a roll call is required, how are you going to stop them? Cloture to end a filibuster is one of the things that requires a roll call; Supreme Court nominations can no longer be filibustered.
really, the only hope for moment is that McCain is too sick or too grumpy to vote Yes and some other Republican feels guilty about the hypocrisy.
in other words: there is no hope.
and, again… RBG.
it’ll be 6/3 before 2020.
really, the only hope for moment is that McCain is too sick or too grumpy to vote Yes and some other Republican feels guilty about the hypocrisy.
in other words: there is no hope.
and, again… RBG.
it’ll be 6/3 before 2020.
I think we have to live with the new reality, which is what Republicans have wanted, that if we have any collective desire for compassion and equality, we’ll have to find a way to do it privately. Obviously, private efforts to help the poor, or to provide dignified old age to most people, or to have a middle class in our society have never worked.
America as the beacon of hope for people who are facing oppression and violence in their own countries is no longer. The attempt to move towards a more tolerant future, with an improved standard of living for all, a cleaner environment, we no longer have a government that supports those things. We have a Russian-style oligarchy.
The rich have theirs, fuck everyone else. They can now indulge their petty cruelties at will.
I think we have to live with the new reality, which is what Republicans have wanted, that if we have any collective desire for compassion and equality, we’ll have to find a way to do it privately. Obviously, private efforts to help the poor, or to provide dignified old age to most people, or to have a middle class in our society have never worked.
America as the beacon of hope for people who are facing oppression and violence in their own countries is no longer. The attempt to move towards a more tolerant future, with an improved standard of living for all, a cleaner environment, we no longer have a government that supports those things. We have a Russian-style oligarchy.
The rich have theirs, fuck everyone else. They can now indulge their petty cruelties at will.
I’ve not read all the comments so apologies if this point has been made, but the consequence of Mitch McConnell’s Garland gambit is that the Senate will never again confirm a SCOTUS nominee of a POTUS of the opposing party, no matter how long the vacancy may last.
That is, absent major structural changes to how U.S. democracy works, which I’d not rule out.
I’ve not read all the comments so apologies if this point has been made, but the consequence of Mitch McConnell’s Garland gambit is that the Senate will never again confirm a SCOTUS nominee of a POTUS of the opposing party, no matter how long the vacancy may last.
That is, absent major structural changes to how U.S. democracy works, which I’d not rule out.
the Senate will never again confirm a SCOTUS nominee of a POTUS of the opposing party
yup.
McConnell will go down in history for this – no matter how they try to sell this as “The Biden Rule” (and they’re trying, hard).
the Senate will never again confirm a SCOTUS nominee of a POTUS of the opposing party
yup.
McConnell will go down in history for this – no matter how they try to sell this as “The Biden Rule” (and they’re trying, hard).
Well, yes. That’s what happens when one side has power and isn’t afraid to use it.
Jack, there are reasons other than fear to refrain from using (or abusing) power when one has it. Like the ability to look into the future and see that what you do today may come back to haunt you next time. Not to mention minor factors like honor and morals.
Well, yes. That’s what happens when one side has power and isn’t afraid to use it.
Jack, there are reasons other than fear to refrain from using (or abusing) power when one has it. Like the ability to look into the future and see that what you do today may come back to haunt you next time. Not to mention minor factors like honor and morals.
i mean, as long as we’re making a wishlist of how things should be.
i mean, as long as we’re making a wishlist of how things should be.
If 50 Senators choose to sail along by voice votes, and avoid the very small number of situations where a roll call is required, how are you going to stop them?
A roll call is required if a Senator calls for one. So you need one Democratic Senator present to make a quorum call, and to prevent unanimous consent to a motion to abandon the quorum call. I see no requirement in the rules for that Senator to answer the roll call.
If 50 Senators choose to sail along by voice votes, and avoid the very small number of situations where a roll call is required, how are you going to stop them?
A roll call is required if a Senator calls for one. So you need one Democratic Senator present to make a quorum call, and to prevent unanimous consent to a motion to abandon the quorum call. I see no requirement in the rules for that Senator to answer the roll call.
possible paths to a solution, or at least an improvement:
historically, mid-term voter turnout is about 40%.
get people to the polls.
2020 census is coming up. that will determine, or at least contribute to, re-drawing of electoral districts. get involved with organizations like common cause and league of women voters, who are working on rolling back gerrymandering through better rules for re-districting.
spend money on organizations with good lawyers.
if there’s an opportunity to be really visible with your point of view – non-violent demonstration, call or write or visit your senator or rep’s office, etc – do it. show up.
lastly, find the people and pursuits that build you up and spend time with them. be kind to everyone.
the court is, in general, not going to be friendly toward the interests of non-powerful people for, probably, another generation. work around it.
possible paths to a solution, or at least an improvement:
historically, mid-term voter turnout is about 40%.
get people to the polls.
2020 census is coming up. that will determine, or at least contribute to, re-drawing of electoral districts. get involved with organizations like common cause and league of women voters, who are working on rolling back gerrymandering through better rules for re-districting.
spend money on organizations with good lawyers.
if there’s an opportunity to be really visible with your point of view – non-violent demonstration, call or write or visit your senator or rep’s office, etc – do it. show up.
lastly, find the people and pursuits that build you up and spend time with them. be kind to everyone.
the court is, in general, not going to be friendly toward the interests of non-powerful people for, probably, another generation. work around it.
and before we can talk about packing, we have to talk about The Judiciary Act of 1869
and before we can talk about packing, we have to talk about The Judiciary Act of 1869
wonkie: they are taking representative government away from everyone bu themselves and they are happily supporting policies that screw everyone but themselves.
If only it were so, it would at least be understandable. Reprehensible, but understandable.
But in fact they are supporting policies which will massively screw themselves. Even more than everybody else. See the restrictions of Food Stamps and other welfare that is actually more heavily used by them than by the people Faux News has taught them to despise. A wonderful 2nd Amendment metaphor about shooting oneself in the foot is irresistible….
wonkie: they are taking representative government away from everyone bu themselves and they are happily supporting policies that screw everyone but themselves.
If only it were so, it would at least be understandable. Reprehensible, but understandable.
But in fact they are supporting policies which will massively screw themselves. Even more than everybody else. See the restrictions of Food Stamps and other welfare that is actually more heavily used by them than by the people Faux News has taught them to despise. A wonderful 2nd Amendment metaphor about shooting oneself in the foot is irresistible….
Jack, there are reasons other than fear to refrain from using (or abusing) power when one has it.
I mean, it’s just an expression. Obviously the point is just that they simultaneously hold the critical positions in the halls of power, and are not respecting inconvenient trivia like honor, norms, or other soft constraints (possibly even some hard constraints). The stuff that we might have previously relied upon to moderate the exercise of that power.
(If we’re quibbling, though, I might point out that an apparent lack of concern about future bad consequences, or for the censure that comes from violating honor and morals, could be fairly characterized as being ‘unafraid’ of those things…)
Jack, there are reasons other than fear to refrain from using (or abusing) power when one has it.
I mean, it’s just an expression. Obviously the point is just that they simultaneously hold the critical positions in the halls of power, and are not respecting inconvenient trivia like honor, norms, or other soft constraints (possibly even some hard constraints). The stuff that we might have previously relied upon to moderate the exercise of that power.
(If we’re quibbling, though, I might point out that an apparent lack of concern about future bad consequences, or for the censure that comes from violating honor and morals, could be fairly characterized as being ‘unafraid’ of those things…)
So you need one Democratic Senator present to make a quorum call, and to prevent unanimous consent to a motion to abandon the quorum call. I see no requirement in the rules for that Senator to answer the roll call.
There is a history of members raising the quorum question, then declining to respond to the roll call (“quorum busting”). This was a particular problem in the 1890s. I do not know the details, but various sources say that precedents to defeat the practice were adopted. There are something over 10,000 precedents — exceptions and extensions of the actual written rules — that are still in effect.
So you need one Democratic Senator present to make a quorum call, and to prevent unanimous consent to a motion to abandon the quorum call. I see no requirement in the rules for that Senator to answer the roll call.
There is a history of members raising the quorum question, then declining to respond to the roll call (“quorum busting”). This was a particular problem in the 1890s. I do not know the details, but various sources say that precedents to defeat the practice were adopted. There are something over 10,000 precedents — exceptions and extensions of the actual written rules — that are still in effect.
While all this is interesting, I suspect the only thing that really matters is winning in November. And in 2020.
While all this is interesting, I suspect the only thing that really matters is winning in November. And in 2020.
As noted above, I see the SCOTUS appointment issue this way.
No appointment until the Mueller investigation is complete and resolved. It’s insane to allow someone whose campaign, administration, and possibly person are under active investigation to appoint a justice who is likely to have to weigh on on precedent-setting rulings concerning those investigations.
Screw the McConnell rule. I want the Mueller rule.
If you’re being investigated and the SCOTUS is likely to have to rule on important issues involved in that investigation – can the POTUS be indicted, can the POTUS pardon himself, and on and on – you do not get to appoint a justice.
The Trump presidency is turning out to be an utter bollocks. It makes a mockery of our form of governance. The people who voted for him need to take a look in the mirror and consider what they’ve unleashed on the country.
And yeah, I know, some folks like the policies. Bugger that.
As noted above, I see the SCOTUS appointment issue this way.
No appointment until the Mueller investigation is complete and resolved. It’s insane to allow someone whose campaign, administration, and possibly person are under active investigation to appoint a justice who is likely to have to weigh on on precedent-setting rulings concerning those investigations.
Screw the McConnell rule. I want the Mueller rule.
If you’re being investigated and the SCOTUS is likely to have to rule on important issues involved in that investigation – can the POTUS be indicted, can the POTUS pardon himself, and on and on – you do not get to appoint a justice.
The Trump presidency is turning out to be an utter bollocks. It makes a mockery of our form of governance. The people who voted for him need to take a look in the mirror and consider what they’ve unleashed on the country.
And yeah, I know, some folks like the policies. Bugger that.
The Trump presidency is turning out to be an utter bollocks. It makes a mockery of our form of governance…
Trump is the closest thing I’ve seen to a fascist in power in the US in my lifetime. The Denver rally talk of ICE agents “liberating”twins from “thousands” of MS13 illegal immigrants – and its rapturous reception by the crowd – was downright scary.
Rules and norms have gone out of the window. The only thing which counts is a majority in Congress; nothing else will slow him down much.
The Trump presidency is turning out to be an utter bollocks. It makes a mockery of our form of governance…
Trump is the closest thing I’ve seen to a fascist in power in the US in my lifetime. The Denver rally talk of ICE agents “liberating”twins from “thousands” of MS13 illegal immigrants – and its rapturous reception by the crowd – was downright scary.
Rules and norms have gone out of the window. The only thing which counts is a majority in Congress; nothing else will slow him down much.
Towns, not twins !
Damn you, autocorrect…
Towns, not twins !
Damn you, autocorrect…
MS13, ISIS, ebola, Iraq, Iran, NK, Welfare Queens…
the GOP has an endless supply of ludicrously-inflated threats with which to rouse the rabble.
MS13, ISIS, ebola, Iraq, Iran, NK, Welfare Queens…
the GOP has an endless supply of ludicrously-inflated threats with which to rouse the rabble.
cleek, it is noteworthy that your list doesn’t include Russia.
cleek, it is noteworthy that your list doesn’t include Russia.
Michael Cain is right: the presiding officer in the Senate can count a member as present during a roll call if he’s there but fails to respond.
However, Democratic Senators could make the procedure very difficult in this unusual circumstance that the majority party has only 50 members at most able to be present. I want to see it do exactly that.
Michael Cain is right: the presiding officer in the Senate can count a member as present during a roll call if he’s there but fails to respond.
However, Democratic Senators could make the procedure very difficult in this unusual circumstance that the majority party has only 50 members at most able to be present. I want to see it do exactly that.
Funny headline:
http://theweek.com/speedreads/782008/trey-gowdy-who-headed-benghazi-investigation-more-than-2-years-claims-mueller-taking-long
Funny headline:
http://theweek.com/speedreads/782008/trey-gowdy-who-headed-benghazi-investigation-more-than-2-years-claims-mueller-taking-long
it’s beginning to sound a lot like fascism. every time he speaks.
it’s beginning to sound a lot like fascism. every time he speaks.
I just want to know who “they,” “we,” and “you” are, very specifically. I’m just guessing that it would make even less sense than it does with vague pronouns if he had to attempt to identify the people he was referring to.
I just want to know who “they,” “we,” and “you” are, very specifically. I’m just guessing that it would make even less sense than it does with vague pronouns if he had to attempt to identify the people he was referring to.
I’m also trying to picture the super-nice apartments in Fargo.
I’m also trying to picture the super-nice apartments in Fargo.
Nigel, personally I think Trump acts like a fascist would do but imo he (personally) does not qualify for the title (while some of those around him do). Not that there is much of a practical difference but I think one has to have something of a ‘political philosophy’ to ‘earn’ the ‘-ist’. Trump has no consistent beliefs beyond ‘I have to be the center of attention and should be allowed to treat anyone like bodily excretions of a semisolid nature’. His interest in politics is essentially zero.
If he could behave the way he does under a different system, he’d change his rhetorics in an instant. It’s just easier under a RW banner to get into position.
The GOP leadership is a different kettle of fish. Some genuine fascists and a lot of DNVP types that believe they can control the fascist beast and use it as an attack dog (worked so well in 1933, didn’t it?).
I think we should begin to refer to the GOP as the Gottwald Party and ditch ‘Mitch’ in favor of ‘Klement’ when referring to McConnell.
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klement_Gottwald ).
The guy was a commie but used classic fascist rhetorics and tactics in combination with parliamentary shenanigans to achieve his goals.
Nigel, personally I think Trump acts like a fascist would do but imo he (personally) does not qualify for the title (while some of those around him do). Not that there is much of a practical difference but I think one has to have something of a ‘political philosophy’ to ‘earn’ the ‘-ist’. Trump has no consistent beliefs beyond ‘I have to be the center of attention and should be allowed to treat anyone like bodily excretions of a semisolid nature’. His interest in politics is essentially zero.
If he could behave the way he does under a different system, he’d change his rhetorics in an instant. It’s just easier under a RW banner to get into position.
The GOP leadership is a different kettle of fish. Some genuine fascists and a lot of DNVP types that believe they can control the fascist beast and use it as an attack dog (worked so well in 1933, didn’t it?).
I think we should begin to refer to the GOP as the Gottwald Party and ditch ‘Mitch’ in favor of ‘Klement’ when referring to McConnell.
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klement_Gottwald ).
The guy was a commie but used classic fascist rhetorics and tactics in combination with parliamentary shenanigans to achieve his goals.
it’s beginning to sound a lot like fascism.
It’s populist demagoguery.
He’s stoking up the base by telling them how everyone is looking down on them, and how much better they are than the folks they think are looking down on them.
I’m sure a lot of Trump’s base does have more money than me, and given the housing market I’m in lots of them probably have a nicer house than me, and I don’t have a boat so they’ve got me beat there. Maybe they’re smarter than me, but I’d want to see proof on that one.
Those folks are never going to vote for anyone other than Trump.
The folks who actually are a paycheck away from sleeping in their cars are the ones that IMO need to think twice before they give that man their money, their vote, or their support. He’s playing them.
He tells them I’m their enemy, but I have nothing against them at all. On the contrary.
Maybe some of them will figure it out. A lot won’t, is my guess. Some will, and they’ll probably end up voting something like democratic socialist, if that option is available to them.
I rant away here on ObWi, but when I talk to people I know who actually are Trumpies, I mostly don’t get into it at all. If they want to talk politics, I am happy to do so, and I do my best to keep the conversation on points of fact. I’m completely sure that my dislike of, and complete lack of respect for, the POTUS comes through, but in general I neither dislike nor disrespect the people I talk to.
My Trumpie niece and her husband are selling their house. His job’s in some jeopardy, the mortgage is stressing them out. She’s having panic attacks.
I’m not going to get into politics with her or her husband, who is both a great guy and a huge Milo fan. It gives me some cognitive dissonance to fit “great guy” and “huge Milo fan” into the same sentence, but I have to recognize that both are true.
Trump isn’t going to do a fucking thing for them. They’ll either figure it out, or they won’t. My job relative to my niece is uncle, not political mentor.
If I bump into Huckabee-Sanders, I’ll be happy to give her are more complete view of my opinions. She’s doing this shit for a living.
it’s beginning to sound a lot like fascism.
It’s populist demagoguery.
He’s stoking up the base by telling them how everyone is looking down on them, and how much better they are than the folks they think are looking down on them.
I’m sure a lot of Trump’s base does have more money than me, and given the housing market I’m in lots of them probably have a nicer house than me, and I don’t have a boat so they’ve got me beat there. Maybe they’re smarter than me, but I’d want to see proof on that one.
Those folks are never going to vote for anyone other than Trump.
The folks who actually are a paycheck away from sleeping in their cars are the ones that IMO need to think twice before they give that man their money, their vote, or their support. He’s playing them.
He tells them I’m their enemy, but I have nothing against them at all. On the contrary.
Maybe some of them will figure it out. A lot won’t, is my guess. Some will, and they’ll probably end up voting something like democratic socialist, if that option is available to them.
I rant away here on ObWi, but when I talk to people I know who actually are Trumpies, I mostly don’t get into it at all. If they want to talk politics, I am happy to do so, and I do my best to keep the conversation on points of fact. I’m completely sure that my dislike of, and complete lack of respect for, the POTUS comes through, but in general I neither dislike nor disrespect the people I talk to.
My Trumpie niece and her husband are selling their house. His job’s in some jeopardy, the mortgage is stressing them out. She’s having panic attacks.
I’m not going to get into politics with her or her husband, who is both a great guy and a huge Milo fan. It gives me some cognitive dissonance to fit “great guy” and “huge Milo fan” into the same sentence, but I have to recognize that both are true.
Trump isn’t going to do a fucking thing for them. They’ll either figure it out, or they won’t. My job relative to my niece is uncle, not political mentor.
If I bump into Huckabee-Sanders, I’ll be happy to give her are more complete view of my opinions. She’s doing this shit for a living.
Here’s a winning strategy for (D)’s, maybe:
The water in Flint is still poisonous. Your town is next.
Fracking is causing earthquakes in OK. Your town is next.
Trump’s trade war is putting companies out of business and people out of their jobs. Farmers are going to lose their farms. Your job is next.
The (R) budget wants big cuts in Medicaid and SS. You know, the benefits you earned over a lifetime of work. Say goodbye to it. Your health and your groceries are next.
Do you benefit from food stamps, Medicaid, housing subsidies? Kiss it goodbye. Your health, your roof, and your groceries are next.
If you’re not rich, Trump and his pals are coming after you. They’re coming after your job, your savings, your house, your retirement, your breakfast lunch and dinner. They want your stuff.
Make America Great Again. Or at least, Not Shitty. Vote for anybody but a (R).
Here’s a winning strategy for (D)’s, maybe:
The water in Flint is still poisonous. Your town is next.
Fracking is causing earthquakes in OK. Your town is next.
Trump’s trade war is putting companies out of business and people out of their jobs. Farmers are going to lose their farms. Your job is next.
The (R) budget wants big cuts in Medicaid and SS. You know, the benefits you earned over a lifetime of work. Say goodbye to it. Your health and your groceries are next.
Do you benefit from food stamps, Medicaid, housing subsidies? Kiss it goodbye. Your health, your roof, and your groceries are next.
If you’re not rich, Trump and his pals are coming after you. They’re coming after your job, your savings, your house, your retirement, your breakfast lunch and dinner. They want your stuff.
Make America Great Again. Or at least, Not Shitty. Vote for anybody but a (R).
Feel free to add your own comments to my list. I bet we can get this thread up over 500 comments, just enumerating the ways in which the (R)’s are fucking over every damned working person in this country.
They’re coming after your stuff. They have billions, and they want yours, too. They want it all.
Don’t vote for (R)s.
Feel free to add your own comments to my list. I bet we can get this thread up over 500 comments, just enumerating the ways in which the (R)’s are fucking over every damned working person in this country.
They’re coming after your stuff. They have billions, and they want yours, too. They want it all.
Don’t vote for (R)s.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/06/fascist-rhetoric-consequences
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/06/fascist-rhetoric-consequences
I’m again late to this, but not because of lack of trying. At the risk of focussing on tone rather than content, I want to note about this
But we are probably in dire enough straits that we have to put up with people who aren’t perfect. So I’m still happy to work with you.
By’we’, do you mean conservative gay men or do you mean the left side of the political spectrum? Or, everyone, a sentiment which Myles na Gopallen used to satirize when he would harangue ‘the Plain People of Ireland’. It may seem very clear who the ‘we’ is for you, but reading the OP, you start off with the first and you seem to move to the last.
One reason I think I flagged this is that the rhetorical move of ascribing the feeling of the majority to one’s own opinions and beliefs is so common that we often don’t notice it. It really obscures more than it clarifies. The knife is turned with ‘putting up’ with ‘people who aren’t perfect’. This leads to a devaluing of the experiences and opinions of others. It takes a discussion of strategy and makes it into a litmus test. This from TPM shows that one can talk about strategy without making claims about who is ‘perfect’
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-critical-question-facing-democrats-and-the-court
of course, Josh Marshall can quote his readers to provide a balanced piece, which is a big difference, but my thinking is that if one can’t do that by acknowledging the other issues that people are bringing, you are going to get frayed tempers, so you have to use other means, which often means perhaps soft-pedaling your own feelings about what is the ‘right’ way.
I write this not because I want to pick a fight with you. I’d like to move your name out of alumni and into authors and I think with Kennedy’s retirement, there are going to be a lot of things that you will want to talk about. Fortunate for us, but maybe not so fortunate for the country. But it did bother me and I wanted to say something, but, as usual, it takes me too long to figure out what I want to say…
Anyway, let me know or drop a line off list if the name change is agreeable.
I’m again late to this, but not because of lack of trying. At the risk of focussing on tone rather than content, I want to note about this
But we are probably in dire enough straits that we have to put up with people who aren’t perfect. So I’m still happy to work with you.
By’we’, do you mean conservative gay men or do you mean the left side of the political spectrum? Or, everyone, a sentiment which Myles na Gopallen used to satirize when he would harangue ‘the Plain People of Ireland’. It may seem very clear who the ‘we’ is for you, but reading the OP, you start off with the first and you seem to move to the last.
One reason I think I flagged this is that the rhetorical move of ascribing the feeling of the majority to one’s own opinions and beliefs is so common that we often don’t notice it. It really obscures more than it clarifies. The knife is turned with ‘putting up’ with ‘people who aren’t perfect’. This leads to a devaluing of the experiences and opinions of others. It takes a discussion of strategy and makes it into a litmus test. This from TPM shows that one can talk about strategy without making claims about who is ‘perfect’
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-critical-question-facing-democrats-and-the-court
of course, Josh Marshall can quote his readers to provide a balanced piece, which is a big difference, but my thinking is that if one can’t do that by acknowledging the other issues that people are bringing, you are going to get frayed tempers, so you have to use other means, which often means perhaps soft-pedaling your own feelings about what is the ‘right’ way.
I write this not because I want to pick a fight with you. I’d like to move your name out of alumni and into authors and I think with Kennedy’s retirement, there are going to be a lot of things that you will want to talk about. Fortunate for us, but maybe not so fortunate for the country. But it did bother me and I wanted to say something, but, as usual, it takes me too long to figure out what I want to say…
Anyway, let me know or drop a line off list if the name change is agreeable.
Liberal japonicus, I was responding to “Who is “we” kimosabe? You, Sebastian, have consistently supported “those who brung you”, and here you are. I am surprised you are surprised.”
So the ‘we’ you quote is in response to bobbyp calling me a Trump supporter. I haven’t even been a liberal Republican in more than a decade. I haven’t even voted for a Republican in more than 15 years. Yes I was raised in very conservative family, and I’m temperamentally conservative, but I’m rather noticeably not a Trump supporter.
Which is the kind of hyperbolic falsity that you would expect from Trump, but it came from bobbyp.
So in my response to bobbyp I noted how I saw his rhetorical past and present, and then said, as you quote. “But we are probably in dire enough straits that we have to put up with people who aren’t perfect. So I’m still happy to work with you.”
That ‘we’ is something like “those of us who would prefer not to see the US slip into dictatorship/or facism/or whatever the hell sick iteration Trump is trying to stumble toward”. The people who aren’t perfect would be myself (personally as someone who bobbyp falsely labels a Trump supporter) and bobbyp (someone who I think of as willing to throw firebombs first and look to see what building was in the way second).
But what I note immediately after is that this is precisely the time where a pretty conservative person and a fairly firebrand-oriented person are going to need to work together.
That is why I called this post “gaming out court packing”. I’m conservative by nature, but I also see the need to fight Trump and the forces that led us here. It is going to be a long fight, so we need to get well beyond the tactics of “just do something”. We need to do something with the view of having something left if we win. So if court packing makes strategic sense, as opposed to “you were mean and I’m going to burn things until you stop sense” then we should do it.
But so far the discussion hasn’t led me to believe that might be true.
The reason I wanted to game it out is to talk about the assumptions that get us there. If we are really in the position to pack the Court, that means we have already done a large bit of winning. It means we have won the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. Given THAT fact, I am arguing that it would be foolish to break the Court further than McConnell has already done because we would be breaking an institution that we still need. We shouldn’t do that unless absolutely necessary, and we won’t know if it is absolutely necessary until we see how the members of the Supreme Court react to the fact of Democrats beating back Trumpism on that level.
Liberal japonicus, I was responding to “Who is “we” kimosabe? You, Sebastian, have consistently supported “those who brung you”, and here you are. I am surprised you are surprised.”
So the ‘we’ you quote is in response to bobbyp calling me a Trump supporter. I haven’t even been a liberal Republican in more than a decade. I haven’t even voted for a Republican in more than 15 years. Yes I was raised in very conservative family, and I’m temperamentally conservative, but I’m rather noticeably not a Trump supporter.
Which is the kind of hyperbolic falsity that you would expect from Trump, but it came from bobbyp.
So in my response to bobbyp I noted how I saw his rhetorical past and present, and then said, as you quote. “But we are probably in dire enough straits that we have to put up with people who aren’t perfect. So I’m still happy to work with you.”
That ‘we’ is something like “those of us who would prefer not to see the US slip into dictatorship/or facism/or whatever the hell sick iteration Trump is trying to stumble toward”. The people who aren’t perfect would be myself (personally as someone who bobbyp falsely labels a Trump supporter) and bobbyp (someone who I think of as willing to throw firebombs first and look to see what building was in the way second).
But what I note immediately after is that this is precisely the time where a pretty conservative person and a fairly firebrand-oriented person are going to need to work together.
That is why I called this post “gaming out court packing”. I’m conservative by nature, but I also see the need to fight Trump and the forces that led us here. It is going to be a long fight, so we need to get well beyond the tactics of “just do something”. We need to do something with the view of having something left if we win. So if court packing makes strategic sense, as opposed to “you were mean and I’m going to burn things until you stop sense” then we should do it.
But so far the discussion hasn’t led me to believe that might be true.
The reason I wanted to game it out is to talk about the assumptions that get us there. If we are really in the position to pack the Court, that means we have already done a large bit of winning. It means we have won the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. Given THAT fact, I am arguing that it would be foolish to break the Court further than McConnell has already done because we would be breaking an institution that we still need. We shouldn’t do that unless absolutely necessary, and we won’t know if it is absolutely necessary until we see how the members of the Supreme Court react to the fact of Democrats beating back Trumpism on that level.
It gives me some cognitive dissonance to fit “great guy” and “huge Milo fan” into the same sentence, but I have to recognize that both are true.
I feel you. I’ve probably mentioned more than once that a good portion, perhaps a majority, of my good friends are Trumpers. I only once in a while really get into it with them, when something is just too stupid to let go by, but I mostly avoid the conversation.
What I cannot do is write them off. I know they’re good people. But they’re looking at the same thing I am and seeing it completely differently. I think I’m right, and I think they’re wrong, but it’s not the entirety of who or what they are, even if I’m right about being right.
I can’t explain how this is so. I can only recognize that it is.
It gives me some cognitive dissonance to fit “great guy” and “huge Milo fan” into the same sentence, but I have to recognize that both are true.
I feel you. I’ve probably mentioned more than once that a good portion, perhaps a majority, of my good friends are Trumpers. I only once in a while really get into it with them, when something is just too stupid to let go by, but I mostly avoid the conversation.
What I cannot do is write them off. I know they’re good people. But they’re looking at the same thing I am and seeing it completely differently. I think I’m right, and I think they’re wrong, but it’s not the entirety of who or what they are, even if I’m right about being right.
I can’t explain how this is so. I can only recognize that it is.
my niece’s husband was a very good wrestler in high school. he loved it.
on one occasion, he hurt one of his opponents. so, he quit. because he didn’t want to hurt anyone.
and, he’d probably take a bullet for milo.
damned if i can make sense of it.
so, i remember that he’s my niece’s husband and that he’s a really good guy. and mostly leave it at that.
my niece’s husband was a very good wrestler in high school. he loved it.
on one occasion, he hurt one of his opponents. so, he quit. because he didn’t want to hurt anyone.
and, he’d probably take a bullet for milo.
damned if i can make sense of it.
so, i remember that he’s my niece’s husband and that he’s a really good guy. and mostly leave it at that.
pretty much this.
sucks to be people like ‘us’, i.e., like most folks commenting on this thread.
don’t give an inch. assume more than a few inches will be taken from you, but don’t give any.
do your best. find ways to enjoy your life. be patient. be kind.
it’s been worse. it’ll be better again.
pretty much this.
sucks to be people like ‘us’, i.e., like most folks commenting on this thread.
don’t give an inch. assume more than a few inches will be taken from you, but don’t give any.
do your best. find ways to enjoy your life. be patient. be kind.
it’s been worse. it’ll be better again.
Haven’t read most of the thread and I have nothing much to say, but here is an option Max Sawicky suggests
https://mobile.twitter.com/maxbsawicky/status/1012112212650012672
Impeach some Justices. Obviously you need some more Democrats to do this. I leave to others whether there are grounds for doing this.
Haven’t read most of the thread and I have nothing much to say, but here is an option Max Sawicky suggests
https://mobile.twitter.com/maxbsawicky/status/1012112212650012672
Impeach some Justices. Obviously you need some more Democrats to do this. I leave to others whether there are grounds for doing this.
The Democratic Party should be campaigning with everything it’s got for a less unbalanced Supreme Court. It’s made its point about the Republicans’ obvious insincerity about procedure, now it needs to start talking about what’s right. And it is simply wrong to have a partisan Supreme Court with a 6-3 majority for the minority party.
A highly partisan Supreme Court might do any of the following:
– restrict women’s reproductive freedom
– increase the power of big business to control politicians and elections
– restrict the ability of the federal government to protect the environment from destruction by corporate interests
– allow extreme partisan gerrymandering
– allow state governments to stop people voting
– allow hostile foreign powers to influence elections in their interests and against the interests of the American people
arguments against fighting for what is right on the Supreme Court amount to saying that if those things become the issue, the electorate will vote in favour of them.
I say tell the electorate the truth, and let it decide.
The Democratic Party should be campaigning with everything it’s got for a less unbalanced Supreme Court. It’s made its point about the Republicans’ obvious insincerity about procedure, now it needs to start talking about what’s right. And it is simply wrong to have a partisan Supreme Court with a 6-3 majority for the minority party.
A highly partisan Supreme Court might do any of the following:
– restrict women’s reproductive freedom
– increase the power of big business to control politicians and elections
– restrict the ability of the federal government to protect the environment from destruction by corporate interests
– allow extreme partisan gerrymandering
– allow state governments to stop people voting
– allow hostile foreign powers to influence elections in their interests and against the interests of the American people
arguments against fighting for what is right on the Supreme Court amount to saying that if those things become the issue, the electorate will vote in favour of them.
I say tell the electorate the truth, and let it decide.
They’re coming after… your retirement…
Of course they are. In hindsight, my entire adult life has been aimed at my retirement: able to ask my own research questions, write software that suits my own interests, etc. And the whole way it’s been a struggle to accumulate enough. Paid the taxes to give my grandparents and parents a retirement. Managed to give the kids enough of an inheritance up front to help get them established. Now I’ve got a chance to make the maps and write the books. If we get 20 years in before they bankrupt me and the spouse, I figure that’s a good run. And we’ll sneer at them every minute of that time.
They’re coming after… your retirement…
Of course they are. In hindsight, my entire adult life has been aimed at my retirement: able to ask my own research questions, write software that suits my own interests, etc. And the whole way it’s been a struggle to accumulate enough. Paid the taxes to give my grandparents and parents a retirement. Managed to give the kids enough of an inheritance up front to help get them established. Now I’ve got a chance to make the maps and write the books. If we get 20 years in before they bankrupt me and the spouse, I figure that’s a good run. And we’ll sneer at them every minute of that time.
Hi Sebastian,
True, but I was trying to suggest that the seeds of that reaction were planted in the OP.
I’ve often wondered why the left is much more susceptible that the right to infighting, and I think it is because of the paradox of ‘we’. On the left, there is a simultaneous ‘this is what most people think’ and ‘well, maybe they don’t think that, but they should’ which then gets pulled back and forth. But conservatism avoids that by simply refusing to accept change.
Recently Andrew Sullivan tweeted
Preventing illegal immigration is not racist, not white supremacist, not bigotry; it’s integral to any democracy functioning; it’s a core function of government.
Slowing massive demographic change is not fascist; it’s conservative.
https://twitter.com/sullydish/status/1010244380211449859
Adam Serwer replied
It’s not racist to design public policy for the explicit purpose of maintaining a white majority is quite an argument.
There is some back and forth there, but Sullivan appeals to a conservative impulse ‘stop things from changing’. While that is good for creating unanimity of purpose, I think it is going to put whoever sticks to that on the wrong side of history.
Hi Sebastian,
True, but I was trying to suggest that the seeds of that reaction were planted in the OP.
I’ve often wondered why the left is much more susceptible that the right to infighting, and I think it is because of the paradox of ‘we’. On the left, there is a simultaneous ‘this is what most people think’ and ‘well, maybe they don’t think that, but they should’ which then gets pulled back and forth. But conservatism avoids that by simply refusing to accept change.
Recently Andrew Sullivan tweeted
Preventing illegal immigration is not racist, not white supremacist, not bigotry; it’s integral to any democracy functioning; it’s a core function of government.
Slowing massive demographic change is not fascist; it’s conservative.
https://twitter.com/sullydish/status/1010244380211449859
Adam Serwer replied
It’s not racist to design public policy for the explicit purpose of maintaining a white majority is quite an argument.
There is some back and forth there, but Sullivan appeals to a conservative impulse ‘stop things from changing’. While that is good for creating unanimity of purpose, I think it is going to put whoever sticks to that on the wrong side of history.
It’s populist demagoguery.
I think the violent rhetoric against groups coupled with the reflexive lies goes beyond that. Trump is not a Nazi, but his rhetoric partakes of that thrill at violence.
There are numerous examples, but the one which struck me recently was the (undoubtedly made up) detail of ICE agents ‘grabbing them by the neck’ and throwing them in paddy wagons.
And “enemies of the people”…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2018/jun/28/capital-gazette-shooting-annapolis-latest-live-news-updates-today-maryland
It’s populist demagoguery.
I think the violent rhetoric against groups coupled with the reflexive lies goes beyond that. Trump is not a Nazi, but his rhetoric partakes of that thrill at violence.
There are numerous examples, but the one which struck me recently was the (undoubtedly made up) detail of ICE agents ‘grabbing them by the neck’ and throwing them in paddy wagons.
And “enemies of the people”…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2018/jun/28/capital-gazette-shooting-annapolis-latest-live-news-updates-today-maryland
Wow
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/say-hello-to-your-boy-a-special-guy
The Times has a fascinating article tonight on the Trump White House’s courtship of Justice Anthony Kennedy, building a relationship and rapport to make Kennedy comfortable retiring on Trump’s watch and ahead of the 2018 midterm election. One particular detail grabbed my attention: Justice Kennedy’s son Justin was the global head of real estate capital markets at Deutsche Bank and a key lifeline of capital to President Donald Trump.
and
As many of you will remember, Deutsche Bank isn’t just any bank. As I noted in the first post I wrote about Trump’s ties to Russia and Vladimir Putin back on July 23rd, 2016, by the mid-90s, every major US bank had blackballed Donald Trump. as the Times put it in 2016, “Several bankers on Wall Street say they are simply not willing to take on what they almost uniformly referred to as ‘Donald risk.’” None would do business with him. With one big exception: Deutsche Bank.
Initially, I thought the same way as Hartmut, that Kennedy is revealing his true colors, but now, I’m feeling like Kennedy didn’t stay on to be able to rule on any SupCt appeals about the Mueller probe cause this probably would have bit him on the ass.
Wow
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/say-hello-to-your-boy-a-special-guy
The Times has a fascinating article tonight on the Trump White House’s courtship of Justice Anthony Kennedy, building a relationship and rapport to make Kennedy comfortable retiring on Trump’s watch and ahead of the 2018 midterm election. One particular detail grabbed my attention: Justice Kennedy’s son Justin was the global head of real estate capital markets at Deutsche Bank and a key lifeline of capital to President Donald Trump.
and
As many of you will remember, Deutsche Bank isn’t just any bank. As I noted in the first post I wrote about Trump’s ties to Russia and Vladimir Putin back on July 23rd, 2016, by the mid-90s, every major US bank had blackballed Donald Trump. as the Times put it in 2016, “Several bankers on Wall Street say they are simply not willing to take on what they almost uniformly referred to as ‘Donald risk.’” None would do business with him. With one big exception: Deutsche Bank.
Initially, I thought the same way as Hartmut, that Kennedy is revealing his true colors, but now, I’m feeling like Kennedy didn’t stay on to be able to rule on any SupCt appeals about the Mueller probe cause this probably would have bit him on the ass.
So if court packing makes strategic sense, as opposed to “you were mean and I’m going to burn things until you stop sense” then we should do it.
I appreciate the spirit of your OP up there, and I think we’re very much on the same general side here, at least compared to the alternative.
But this characterization gives me pause.
I really don’t think *anyone* — anyone on this side, anyway — is proposing to just burn things down with no better plan than hoping the other side eventually cries uncle.
People are certainly *angry*. Some of those angry people certainly might be *mistaken* in their judgement of the best course of action to take. But being angry and mistaken isn’t the same thing as the sort of thoughtless, nihilistic vengeance seeking you’re imputing there.
Because even in their great and justified anger, people plainly want to do something that will work to make things better. Up to and including the people that really do want to burn shit down — they want to burn shit because they have some notion that it’s the best available course of action, not simply for its own sake. You’re not the only one capable of *trying* to game things out, you know.
Indeed, as far as that goes, I’m not sure you’ve really gamed it out as convincingly as you think you have.
As I pointed out above, those floating “court packing” aren’t proposing it just for the sake of scoring points or petty revenge. They’re doing it because they sincerely view control of the court as the only way to retake some extremely important and concrete civic ground. Including, not incidentally, reestablishing and reinforcing the integrity of the fundamental institutions of democracy — which the Republicans are currently so very busy trying to break and/or steal.
You don’t really engage with this at all in your scenarios. But you need to.
There are some other unproven assumptions and unanswered questions in there too, for example:
– Assuming that packing the court will involve an expenditure of political capital. That such a move would automatically *harm* liberal politicians at the polls — where it actually counts — seems undemonstrated. Republicans certainly don’t seem to be suffering too greatly yet from the McConnell Maneuver. It seems equally possible that it would be an investment that pays dividends, not only in concrete legal victories, but also in renewed — or at least not reduced — political enthusiasm among the liberal base. There’s no particular reason to think it would need to totally displace the pursuit of other policy objectives either.
– Assuming that the long term majority in Scenario 1 wouldn’t want to take steps to fix an obviously broken institution for its own sake. Even if the conservative justices mostly wagged their tails and played nice with their legislative agenda for the duration, it’d be pretty shortsighted not to worry about the same partisan problems flaring up again down the road. Any wise government would start to think about implementing institutional fixes, some of which might include expanding the size of the court. (This is rather like what actually happened with the Act of 1866 — reorganizing the basis of the court to reduce the undue influence of slave states on its composition.)
– Assuming that tit-for-tat escalation is a given. That’s not actually as obvious as it seems, particularly if there really are substantial political costs. The public appetite for these sorts of games could subside very quickly, and it’s entirely possible that a subsequent Republican government, probably with its own fragile, knife-edge majority, and perhaps a new ideological configuration, might be unable, unwilling, or even uninterested in following through on any substantive escalation.
So if court packing makes strategic sense, as opposed to “you were mean and I’m going to burn things until you stop sense” then we should do it.
I appreciate the spirit of your OP up there, and I think we’re very much on the same general side here, at least compared to the alternative.
But this characterization gives me pause.
I really don’t think *anyone* — anyone on this side, anyway — is proposing to just burn things down with no better plan than hoping the other side eventually cries uncle.
People are certainly *angry*. Some of those angry people certainly might be *mistaken* in their judgement of the best course of action to take. But being angry and mistaken isn’t the same thing as the sort of thoughtless, nihilistic vengeance seeking you’re imputing there.
Because even in their great and justified anger, people plainly want to do something that will work to make things better. Up to and including the people that really do want to burn shit down — they want to burn shit because they have some notion that it’s the best available course of action, not simply for its own sake. You’re not the only one capable of *trying* to game things out, you know.
Indeed, as far as that goes, I’m not sure you’ve really gamed it out as convincingly as you think you have.
As I pointed out above, those floating “court packing” aren’t proposing it just for the sake of scoring points or petty revenge. They’re doing it because they sincerely view control of the court as the only way to retake some extremely important and concrete civic ground. Including, not incidentally, reestablishing and reinforcing the integrity of the fundamental institutions of democracy — which the Republicans are currently so very busy trying to break and/or steal.
You don’t really engage with this at all in your scenarios. But you need to.
There are some other unproven assumptions and unanswered questions in there too, for example:
– Assuming that packing the court will involve an expenditure of political capital. That such a move would automatically *harm* liberal politicians at the polls — where it actually counts — seems undemonstrated. Republicans certainly don’t seem to be suffering too greatly yet from the McConnell Maneuver. It seems equally possible that it would be an investment that pays dividends, not only in concrete legal victories, but also in renewed — or at least not reduced — political enthusiasm among the liberal base. There’s no particular reason to think it would need to totally displace the pursuit of other policy objectives either.
– Assuming that the long term majority in Scenario 1 wouldn’t want to take steps to fix an obviously broken institution for its own sake. Even if the conservative justices mostly wagged their tails and played nice with their legislative agenda for the duration, it’d be pretty shortsighted not to worry about the same partisan problems flaring up again down the road. Any wise government would start to think about implementing institutional fixes, some of which might include expanding the size of the court. (This is rather like what actually happened with the Act of 1866 — reorganizing the basis of the court to reduce the undue influence of slave states on its composition.)
– Assuming that tit-for-tat escalation is a given. That’s not actually as obvious as it seems, particularly if there really are substantial political costs. The public appetite for these sorts of games could subside very quickly, and it’s entirely possible that a subsequent Republican government, probably with its own fragile, knife-edge majority, and perhaps a new ideological configuration, might be unable, unwilling, or even uninterested in following through on any substantive escalation.
I think the violent rhetoric against groups coupled with the reflexive lies goes beyond that
actually, i agree. thank you for the correction.
now, I’m feeling like Kennedy didn’t stay on to be able to rule on any SupCt appeals about the Mueller probe cause this probably would have bit him on the ass.
i’m thinking he woke up with a horse’s head in his bed.
lots of interesting ideas in this thread, but realistically the path forward is called ‘win elections’. the (R)’s are doing what they can to make that harder, so other folks are going to have to make that much more of an effort.
it’s also useful to show up if stuff is going on in your area. lots of events *tomorrow* on the immigration tip, chances are there’s one in your area. show up. become an inescapable annoying pest to your senators and rep’s offices. phone calls are best, then letters, chain emails are least useful but if that’s what you have time for do that.
make yourself heard. get in the way. be a PITA.
I think the violent rhetoric against groups coupled with the reflexive lies goes beyond that
actually, i agree. thank you for the correction.
now, I’m feeling like Kennedy didn’t stay on to be able to rule on any SupCt appeals about the Mueller probe cause this probably would have bit him on the ass.
i’m thinking he woke up with a horse’s head in his bed.
lots of interesting ideas in this thread, but realistically the path forward is called ‘win elections’. the (R)’s are doing what they can to make that harder, so other folks are going to have to make that much more of an effort.
it’s also useful to show up if stuff is going on in your area. lots of events *tomorrow* on the immigration tip, chances are there’s one in your area. show up. become an inescapable annoying pest to your senators and rep’s offices. phone calls are best, then letters, chain emails are least useful but if that’s what you have time for do that.
make yourself heard. get in the way. be a PITA.
also, andrew sullivan, *immigrant*, espouses a conservatism of the traditional british ‘some people are born to rule’ form, which is not consistent with our history and values.
he is all for extending rights and privileges to everyone, as long as they are rights and privileges he wants to have.
people seem to think he’s an interesting voice, i don’t see it.
also, andrew sullivan, *immigrant*, espouses a conservatism of the traditional british ‘some people are born to rule’ form, which is not consistent with our history and values.
he is all for extending rights and privileges to everyone, as long as they are rights and privileges he wants to have.
people seem to think he’s an interesting voice, i don’t see it.
i’m thinking he woke up with a horse’s head in his bed.
we were watching Colbert last night and he mentioned Kennedy. my wife said “I wonder how they got to him.”
i thought the notion was silly.
but now… and remembering who we’re dealing with.
no not silly.
i’m thinking he woke up with a horse’s head in his bed.
we were watching Colbert last night and he mentioned Kennedy. my wife said “I wonder how they got to him.”
i thought the notion was silly.
but now… and remembering who we’re dealing with.
no not silly.
British conservatism is a bit more complicated than that, and Sullivan was always attached to the right of the party. The other half of the party would almost certainly be far happier with voting Democrat than Republican.
Meantime, we used to take the piss out of totalitarian Russia for this sort of thing:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/28/president-trump-announces-a-major-u-s-steel-expansion-that-isnt-happening/
British conservatism is a bit more complicated than that, and Sullivan was always attached to the right of the party. The other half of the party would almost certainly be far happier with voting Democrat than Republican.
Meantime, we used to take the piss out of totalitarian Russia for this sort of thing:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/28/president-trump-announces-a-major-u-s-steel-expansion-that-isnt-happening/
Big money buts judicial appointments as well as politicians:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/the-dark-money-campaign-to-replace-anthony-kennedy-has-already-begun.html?
Big money buts judicial appointments as well as politicians:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/the-dark-money-campaign-to-replace-anthony-kennedy-has-already-begun.html?
Buys.
Though buts might also be appropriate.
Buys.
Though buts might also be appropriate.
British conservatism is a bit more complicated than that
I’m sure it is. I’m also pretty sure Sullivan is not.
Brown Spanish-speaking people have been living in the southwest, pacific coast, and mountain west of what is now the US since before Henry VIII. If you leave out the “Spanish-speaking” part, you can dial that back to before there was an England.
10% of American citizens claim Mexican heritage. Add in all of the other varieties of Hispanic heritage and it’s more than that. Add in all Latin peoples and it’s more than that. And they’ve been here since before there was a “here”.
Sullivan sounds like an Irish name to me. Chances are that, absent the US accommodating “massive demographic change”, no small number of Sullivan’s people would have died, miserably, of starvation.
I don’t need Andrew freaking Sullivan, **immigrant**, telling me what the demographic mix of the country I was born in needs to be.
Immigration has worked out pretty well for him. He just wants to shut the door on people from “cultural backgrounds” that he deems less worthy.
He can kiss my behind.
British conservatism is a bit more complicated than that
I’m sure it is. I’m also pretty sure Sullivan is not.
Brown Spanish-speaking people have been living in the southwest, pacific coast, and mountain west of what is now the US since before Henry VIII. If you leave out the “Spanish-speaking” part, you can dial that back to before there was an England.
10% of American citizens claim Mexican heritage. Add in all of the other varieties of Hispanic heritage and it’s more than that. Add in all Latin peoples and it’s more than that. And they’ve been here since before there was a “here”.
Sullivan sounds like an Irish name to me. Chances are that, absent the US accommodating “massive demographic change”, no small number of Sullivan’s people would have died, miserably, of starvation.
I don’t need Andrew freaking Sullivan, **immigrant**, telling me what the demographic mix of the country I was born in needs to be.
Immigration has worked out pretty well for him. He just wants to shut the door on people from “cultural backgrounds” that he deems less worthy.
He can kiss my behind.
Damned Hispanic interlopers!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Augustine,_Florida
Damned Hispanic interlopers!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Augustine,_Florida
On a side note that somewhat parallels an immigrant complaining about immigrants, a not-too-distant cousin of mine informed me the other day that her great grandfather, my grandfather’s brother, was a member of the KKK. His grandson recently found membership documentation in a box of his papers that had been saved over the years, but were never really looked into.
What does that have to do with anything? It’s a pretty incontrovertible fact that he was of mixed race, as was his second wife. There was plenty of evidence for this that I had found, but their son, my mom’s first cousin, recently took a DNA test, which estimated him as having 14% sub-Saharan African ancestry – just to put a cherry on top.
As far as the KKK is concerned, my great uncle was a black man, or at least would have been had they known. Did he know? I don’t know. But he was a member!
On a side note that somewhat parallels an immigrant complaining about immigrants, a not-too-distant cousin of mine informed me the other day that her great grandfather, my grandfather’s brother, was a member of the KKK. His grandson recently found membership documentation in a box of his papers that had been saved over the years, but were never really looked into.
What does that have to do with anything? It’s a pretty incontrovertible fact that he was of mixed race, as was his second wife. There was plenty of evidence for this that I had found, but their son, my mom’s first cousin, recently took a DNA test, which estimated him as having 14% sub-Saharan African ancestry – just to put a cherry on top.
As far as the KKK is concerned, my great uncle was a black man, or at least would have been had they known. Did he know? I don’t know. But he was a member!
Andrew Sullivan also likes to whine about how taxing higher incomes at higher rates is “punishing the successful.”
When Sally Ride died, he sh!t on her for never coming out while she was alive, writing, in his oh-so-clever debater’s way, that her message to young gay people had been “duck and cover” (or something like that).
He did publish reader comments critical of him for that, and when I emailed him to say he was being a jerk, he asked me why (in his Oxford Union way, sort of like “prove it”). I wrote him four dense pages making the basic point that I have found it much easier to figure out how to “belong” in the world as a gay person than as a female math nerd, and that I (and he) couldn’t possibly imagine what Sally Ride must have gone through to get where she got. He didn’t use my letter, though in fairness, I was late to the party, and by that time the topic had passed its sell-by date. But nor did he acknowledge the point I had made.
He’s a self-aggrandizing git, who thinks he’s smart because he’s clever in a debate society sort of way. Too bad being successful at debate doesn’t require learning a bit of compassion and humility as well.
Andrew Sullivan also likes to whine about how taxing higher incomes at higher rates is “punishing the successful.”
When Sally Ride died, he sh!t on her for never coming out while she was alive, writing, in his oh-so-clever debater’s way, that her message to young gay people had been “duck and cover” (or something like that).
He did publish reader comments critical of him for that, and when I emailed him to say he was being a jerk, he asked me why (in his Oxford Union way, sort of like “prove it”). I wrote him four dense pages making the basic point that I have found it much easier to figure out how to “belong” in the world as a gay person than as a female math nerd, and that I (and he) couldn’t possibly imagine what Sally Ride must have gone through to get where she got. He didn’t use my letter, though in fairness, I was late to the party, and by that time the topic had passed its sell-by date. But nor did he acknowledge the point I had made.
He’s a self-aggrandizing git, who thinks he’s smart because he’s clever in a debate society sort of way. Too bad being successful at debate doesn’t require learning a bit of compassion and humility as well.
lots of interesting ideas in this thread, but realistically the path forward is called ‘win elections’. the (R)’s are doing what they can to make that harder, so other folks are going to have to make that much more of an effort.
What Russel said. Make the effort around the election. Do other stuff if you wish, but make sure you budget that first.
lots of interesting ideas in this thread, but realistically the path forward is called ‘win elections’. the (R)’s are doing what they can to make that harder, so other folks are going to have to make that much more of an effort.
What Russel said. Make the effort around the election. Do other stuff if you wish, but make sure you budget that first.
a few years back i found out that ignoring Sullivan did not reduce my quality of life in any appreciable way.
a few years back i found out that ignoring Sullivan did not reduce my quality of life in any appreciable way.
Sullivan has gotten a lot less thoughtful, and a lot less interesting, than he was a decade or two ago. And the deterioration appears to be accelerating, if his last couple of columns are any indication.
Sullivan has gotten a lot less thoughtful, and a lot less interesting, than he was a decade or two ago. And the deterioration appears to be accelerating, if his last couple of columns are any indication.
@cleek — ditto. I first started reading him during the Terry Schiavo controversy. As someone who had been raised Catholic, I was pulled in by his writing about the case, which included some church history (he said that there was a several-hundred-year history of church teaching saying that it is not required to take extraordinary measures to keep alive someone who is dying). That he was a gay conservative was intriguing too. Plus, he posted about a lot of stuff that wasn’t politics — art, literature, etc. — that I wouldn’t have run into elsewhere.
I reached my limit when Sally Ride died. I just stopped reading him one day, with, as you say, no loss in quality of life, and in fact some noticeable improvement; his perpetual superior sneer was poisonous. I gather he hasn’t improved.
I can’t believe it’s been six years since Sally Ride died………
@cleek — ditto. I first started reading him during the Terry Schiavo controversy. As someone who had been raised Catholic, I was pulled in by his writing about the case, which included some church history (he said that there was a several-hundred-year history of church teaching saying that it is not required to take extraordinary measures to keep alive someone who is dying). That he was a gay conservative was intriguing too. Plus, he posted about a lot of stuff that wasn’t politics — art, literature, etc. — that I wouldn’t have run into elsewhere.
I reached my limit when Sally Ride died. I just stopped reading him one day, with, as you say, no loss in quality of life, and in fact some noticeable improvement; his perpetual superior sneer was poisonous. I gather he hasn’t improved.
I can’t believe it’s been six years since Sally Ride died………
I didn’t recognise the name (although I’m sure I must have read about her at the time). What an impressive-sounding woman – I’m glad I looked her up and now know more about her.
I didn’t recognise the name (although I’m sure I must have read about her at the time). What an impressive-sounding woman – I’m glad I looked her up and now know more about her.
I’d like to think Sally Ride was a Wilson Pickett fan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfX2mh2zg6k
I’d like to think Sally Ride was a Wilson Pickett fan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfX2mh2zg6k
That there are, at a minimum, 49 GOP senate votes for any crap bill McConnell wants to burp up seems to be problematic.
Yes he probably checks beforehand, but still, WTF is wrong with these people?
That there are, at a minimum, 49 GOP senate votes for any crap bill McConnell wants to burp up seems to be problematic.
Yes he probably checks beforehand, but still, WTF is wrong with these people?
“As I pointed out above, those floating “court packing” aren’t proposing it just for the sake of scoring points or petty revenge. They’re doing it because they sincerely view control of the court as the only way to retake some extremely important and concrete civic ground. Including, not incidentally, reestablishing and reinforcing the integrity of the fundamental institutions of democracy — which the Republicans are currently so very busy trying to break and/or steal.”
But court packing doesn’t help re-establish the integrity of the court, it destroys it. At the very least, proponents of a proposal like court packing need to very clearly explain how they think court packing gets to re-establishing the integrity of the court. The negatives are obvious, while the game plan after that is completely ignored. This world has had plenty of “break it first, then we will figure it out” plans and I don’t ever remember that working.
“There are some other unproven assumptions and unanswered questions in there too, for example:
– Assuming that packing the court will involve an expenditure of political capital. That such a move would automatically *harm* liberal politicians at the polls — where it actually counts — seems undemonstrated.”
Every major upheaval political move spends political capital. Real politics is about priorities, and that is precisely why the Democrats lost the Rust Belt states–they had a 20 year history of making it crystal clear that between “globalism” and “putting further globalism on hold until we can take substantive steps about the problems caused by globalism”, they always chose globalism as the priority. They could say that they were going to do something about it, but when push came to shove, deeper globalism always won.
“There’s no particular reason to think it would need to totally displace the pursuit of other policy objectives either.”
This seems objectively wrong. There is every reason to think it would need to largely displace the pursuit of other policy objectives.
If you disagree, in addition to Obamacare, why didn’t we get much firmer bank regulation AND much better job retraining for the rust belt AND a much bigger stimulus package AND lock down abortion rules on a federal level AND get a strong new voting rights act passed AND get something done about colleges? None of those things would be as serious as court packing.
“As I pointed out above, those floating “court packing” aren’t proposing it just for the sake of scoring points or petty revenge. They’re doing it because they sincerely view control of the court as the only way to retake some extremely important and concrete civic ground. Including, not incidentally, reestablishing and reinforcing the integrity of the fundamental institutions of democracy — which the Republicans are currently so very busy trying to break and/or steal.”
But court packing doesn’t help re-establish the integrity of the court, it destroys it. At the very least, proponents of a proposal like court packing need to very clearly explain how they think court packing gets to re-establishing the integrity of the court. The negatives are obvious, while the game plan after that is completely ignored. This world has had plenty of “break it first, then we will figure it out” plans and I don’t ever remember that working.
“There are some other unproven assumptions and unanswered questions in there too, for example:
– Assuming that packing the court will involve an expenditure of political capital. That such a move would automatically *harm* liberal politicians at the polls — where it actually counts — seems undemonstrated.”
Every major upheaval political move spends political capital. Real politics is about priorities, and that is precisely why the Democrats lost the Rust Belt states–they had a 20 year history of making it crystal clear that between “globalism” and “putting further globalism on hold until we can take substantive steps about the problems caused by globalism”, they always chose globalism as the priority. They could say that they were going to do something about it, but when push came to shove, deeper globalism always won.
“There’s no particular reason to think it would need to totally displace the pursuit of other policy objectives either.”
This seems objectively wrong. There is every reason to think it would need to largely displace the pursuit of other policy objectives.
If you disagree, in addition to Obamacare, why didn’t we get much firmer bank regulation AND much better job retraining for the rust belt AND a much bigger stimulus package AND lock down abortion rules on a federal level AND get a strong new voting rights act passed AND get something done about colleges? None of those things would be as serious as court packing.
If you disagree, in addition to Obamacare, why didn’t we get much firmer bank regulation AND much better job retraining for the rust belt AND a much bigger stimulus package AND lock down abortion rules on a federal level AND get a strong new voting rights act passed AND get something done about colleges?
because the republicans made it very clear that they were not going to work with Obama and the democrats on anything whatsoever. A lot of the court packing talk pictures a day when the Republicans are a spent force and the Dems would have to deal with the problems of Trump having had two picks. For that reason, I don’t think it is worthwhile to talk about it.
If you disagree, in addition to Obamacare, why didn’t we get much firmer bank regulation AND much better job retraining for the rust belt AND a much bigger stimulus package AND lock down abortion rules on a federal level AND get a strong new voting rights act passed AND get something done about colleges?
because the republicans made it very clear that they were not going to work with Obama and the democrats on anything whatsoever. A lot of the court packing talk pictures a day when the Republicans are a spent force and the Dems would have to deal with the problems of Trump having had two picks. For that reason, I don’t think it is worthwhile to talk about it.
put me down for NO, on the court packing proposition.
increasing the number of judges in order to put more liberals on the court is totally short sighted. the GOP will just increase the limit the next chance they get. soon we’ll have more judges than representatives.
put me down for NO, on the court packing proposition.
increasing the number of judges in order to put more liberals on the court is totally short sighted. the GOP will just increase the limit the next chance they get. soon we’ll have more judges than representatives.
“because the republicans made it very clear that they were not going to work with Obama and the democrats on anything whatsoever.”
Yes, but my point is that major initiatives take political capital. It wasn’t that Democrats couldn’t do *anything*. They did health care, and that was great. It was that they couldn’t do *everything*, because major initiatives take political capital.
We can imagine a world where Democrats have so much political capital that they can do essentially everything they want to do, but it is hard to imagine THAT world being a world where they need to bother with court packing. In THAT world if Trump appointed judges were really obstructing everything (which would be shocking in THAT world) Democrats could just impeach them and replace them. Even that would be better than court packing, because in that world Republicans couldn’t replicate the feat without taking all three branches at super majority levels.
“because the republicans made it very clear that they were not going to work with Obama and the democrats on anything whatsoever.”
Yes, but my point is that major initiatives take political capital. It wasn’t that Democrats couldn’t do *anything*. They did health care, and that was great. It was that they couldn’t do *everything*, because major initiatives take political capital.
We can imagine a world where Democrats have so much political capital that they can do essentially everything they want to do, but it is hard to imagine THAT world being a world where they need to bother with court packing. In THAT world if Trump appointed judges were really obstructing everything (which would be shocking in THAT world) Democrats could just impeach them and replace them. Even that would be better than court packing, because in that world Republicans couldn’t replicate the feat without taking all three branches at super majority levels.
put me down for NO, on the court packing proposition.
increasing the number of judges in order to put more liberals on the court is totally short sighted. the GOP will just increase the limit the next chance they get. soon we’ll have more judges than representatives.
Exactly. We have already seen, with the removal of the filibuster for (Federal district) judicial nominations, just how this sort of thing can come back to bite you. In short, don’t ever assume that you will never be the guy on the short end of whatever short-term solution you are advocating for.
put me down for NO, on the court packing proposition.
increasing the number of judges in order to put more liberals on the court is totally short sighted. the GOP will just increase the limit the next chance they get. soon we’ll have more judges than representatives.
Exactly. We have already seen, with the removal of the filibuster for (Federal district) judicial nominations, just how this sort of thing can come back to bite you. In short, don’t ever assume that you will never be the guy on the short end of whatever short-term solution you are advocating for.
The SCOTUS is a necessary component of American governance. It is a political institution. It always has been. Any pretense otherwise is neither liberal nor conservative. It is merely stupid. If I’m wrong, please explain why both liberals and conservatives make a big deal about who gets to “call balls and strikes”.
So let’s dispense with piety: The Law is not some Platonic Ideal Form, Justice is not blind, and even if you think the Constitution defines “the” strike zone, it is 5 Justices who define its actual corners. Personnel is policy. The rabid anti-abortionists know this very well, as do the gun nuts and of course the authoritarian corporatists. It’s long past time for pro-choice, gun-sanity, union-friendly Americans to stop apologizing and play the game on the same goddam field.
“Packing the Court”, if it ever becomes an option for sane Americans, will be an attempt to preserve the SCOTUS as a relevant branch of government. The Supreme Court’s power lies entirely and only in the deference its rulings get from We The People. A court composed of revanchist Republicans, packed on to the bench by accidental presidents, “interpreting” the strike zone for the next half century, is not likely to preserve its authority in an America that manages to survive its current bout of insanity.
“One man, one vote, one time” is often how tinpot dictators rise to power. Here in America, the closests analog (so far) has been the lifetime appointment of judges by temporarily-victorious factions. There may have been a time when the victorious understood the temporary nature of their victory, but we passed a tipping point in 2010 if not in 2000. Once the temporarily-victorious start using their temporary power to entrench themselves, the equilibrium becomes unstable.
Those who wish to see the SCOTUS held in contempt by the next generation or two can do no better than let He, Trump staff it today.
–TP
The SCOTUS is a necessary component of American governance. It is a political institution. It always has been. Any pretense otherwise is neither liberal nor conservative. It is merely stupid. If I’m wrong, please explain why both liberals and conservatives make a big deal about who gets to “call balls and strikes”.
So let’s dispense with piety: The Law is not some Platonic Ideal Form, Justice is not blind, and even if you think the Constitution defines “the” strike zone, it is 5 Justices who define its actual corners. Personnel is policy. The rabid anti-abortionists know this very well, as do the gun nuts and of course the authoritarian corporatists. It’s long past time for pro-choice, gun-sanity, union-friendly Americans to stop apologizing and play the game on the same goddam field.
“Packing the Court”, if it ever becomes an option for sane Americans, will be an attempt to preserve the SCOTUS as a relevant branch of government. The Supreme Court’s power lies entirely and only in the deference its rulings get from We The People. A court composed of revanchist Republicans, packed on to the bench by accidental presidents, “interpreting” the strike zone for the next half century, is not likely to preserve its authority in an America that manages to survive its current bout of insanity.
“One man, one vote, one time” is often how tinpot dictators rise to power. Here in America, the closests analog (so far) has been the lifetime appointment of judges by temporarily-victorious factions. There may have been a time when the victorious understood the temporary nature of their victory, but we passed a tipping point in 2010 if not in 2000. Once the temporarily-victorious start using their temporary power to entrench themselves, the equilibrium becomes unstable.
Those who wish to see the SCOTUS held in contempt by the next generation or two can do no better than let He, Trump staff it today.
–TP
Certainly some judges interpret the law on a partisan/ideological basis. But it is worth noting that many actually do their job focused on the law rather than partisan/ideological advantage. Don’t believe it? Just look at how many of the court rulings (both in the District Courts and in the Appeals Courts) against Trump have been by judges appointed by Republican Presidents.
Just sayin’: the fact that some are highly visibly abusing their office doesn’t mean that many, let alone most, are doing so. We shouldn’t lose sight of that reality.
Certainly some judges interpret the law on a partisan/ideological basis. But it is worth noting that many actually do their job focused on the law rather than partisan/ideological advantage. Don’t believe it? Just look at how many of the court rulings (both in the District Courts and in the Appeals Courts) against Trump have been by judges appointed by Republican Presidents.
Just sayin’: the fact that some are highly visibly abusing their office doesn’t mean that many, let alone most, are doing so. We shouldn’t lose sight of that reality.
But court packing doesn’t help re-establish the integrity of the court, it destroys it.
I don’t think this is true. It doesn’t really even make sense.
I think we all agree that the integrity of the court is, as it stands, compromised.
And assuming we want to fix that, the question of what to do about it has two parts,
1) What conditions would constitute a restoration of that integrity, and
2) How can those conditions be brought about.
I think the answer to 1) is that restoration would necessarily involve not only curing the underlying disease, but also correcting and repairing as best we can any symptoms and damage caused by the original infection.
That is, fix the deeper institutional conditions which allowed the court’s integrity to be subverted in the first place, but also correct the damaged conditions which were in turn created by those failures. The skewed makeup of the court is therefore one of the many things that, at least in the long term, need to be corrected before we can call job done on our restoring integrity project.
And moving on to 2), there are a couple broad approaches possible (not necessarily mutually exclusive):
One is to leave it alone and hope that it will be able to heal on its own. If a long term Democratic majority takes power, than perhaps the makeup of the court will once again begin to reflect the country after 15 or 20 years. The ease with which it was previously broken can then be comfortably forgotten, and, voila, ‘integrity’ restored.
The other approach would be some kind of deliberate reform.
That could obviously take a great many different shapes. Everything from term limits, to hard constitutional requirements for supermajority consensus on confirmation, to scaling back judicial review (via constitutional amendment, presumably), or even just randomly selecting justices by lottery from other federal benches.
But if any of those more radical reforms are on the menu, then why preemptively take changing the size of the court off the menu? It’s not even a number that’s Constitutionally enshrined — it’s been changed several times before, sometimes for more or less trivial administrative reasons. There’s plenty of reason to want it there. Beyond the immediate boost to representational integrity from the new appointments, a larger court might have other advantages, like a broader pool of specialized expertise.
The only reason for voluntarily taking it off the board seems to be that Rs would use the excuse to redouble their efforts to break or subvert the court down the road.
But if the fear is that the Rs are going to start wrecking the court again the instant they get a chance, maybe the problem is that your reforms didn’t go far enough. Because a lack of quasi-legitimate excuses isn’t going to stop them. It never has before.
But court packing doesn’t help re-establish the integrity of the court, it destroys it.
I don’t think this is true. It doesn’t really even make sense.
I think we all agree that the integrity of the court is, as it stands, compromised.
And assuming we want to fix that, the question of what to do about it has two parts,
1) What conditions would constitute a restoration of that integrity, and
2) How can those conditions be brought about.
I think the answer to 1) is that restoration would necessarily involve not only curing the underlying disease, but also correcting and repairing as best we can any symptoms and damage caused by the original infection.
That is, fix the deeper institutional conditions which allowed the court’s integrity to be subverted in the first place, but also correct the damaged conditions which were in turn created by those failures. The skewed makeup of the court is therefore one of the many things that, at least in the long term, need to be corrected before we can call job done on our restoring integrity project.
And moving on to 2), there are a couple broad approaches possible (not necessarily mutually exclusive):
One is to leave it alone and hope that it will be able to heal on its own. If a long term Democratic majority takes power, than perhaps the makeup of the court will once again begin to reflect the country after 15 or 20 years. The ease with which it was previously broken can then be comfortably forgotten, and, voila, ‘integrity’ restored.
The other approach would be some kind of deliberate reform.
That could obviously take a great many different shapes. Everything from term limits, to hard constitutional requirements for supermajority consensus on confirmation, to scaling back judicial review (via constitutional amendment, presumably), or even just randomly selecting justices by lottery from other federal benches.
But if any of those more radical reforms are on the menu, then why preemptively take changing the size of the court off the menu? It’s not even a number that’s Constitutionally enshrined — it’s been changed several times before, sometimes for more or less trivial administrative reasons. There’s plenty of reason to want it there. Beyond the immediate boost to representational integrity from the new appointments, a larger court might have other advantages, like a broader pool of specialized expertise.
The only reason for voluntarily taking it off the board seems to be that Rs would use the excuse to redouble their efforts to break or subvert the court down the road.
But if the fear is that the Rs are going to start wrecking the court again the instant they get a chance, maybe the problem is that your reforms didn’t go far enough. Because a lack of quasi-legitimate excuses isn’t going to stop them. It never has before.
Certainly some judges interpret the law on a partisan/ideological basis.
Yes. And He, Trump has a list of them. It’s not a blacklist.
–TP
Certainly some judges interpret the law on a partisan/ideological basis.
Yes. And He, Trump has a list of them. It’s not a blacklist.
–TP
I apologise for posting this in a non-open thread, but I thought you all might want to know that Carole Cadwalladr won the 2018 Orwell Prize.
The Observer’s Carole Cadwalladr has won the Orwell Prize for Journalism 2018 for her reports on Cambridge Analytica and the impact of big data on the EU referendum and 2016 US presidential election
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/observers-carole-cadwalladr-wins-orwell-prize-for-journalism-for-cambridge-analytica-data-investigation/
She’s been very brave and persistent in the face of threats and obstruction, and she’s still going on e.g. the role of Nigel Farage in various nefarious related activities. I recommend her twitter feed, for those who are interested.
Back to the vital question of the SCOTUS – sorry for the interruption!
I apologise for posting this in a non-open thread, but I thought you all might want to know that Carole Cadwalladr won the 2018 Orwell Prize.
The Observer’s Carole Cadwalladr has won the Orwell Prize for Journalism 2018 for her reports on Cambridge Analytica and the impact of big data on the EU referendum and 2016 US presidential election
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/observers-carole-cadwalladr-wins-orwell-prize-for-journalism-for-cambridge-analytica-data-investigation/
She’s been very brave and persistent in the face of threats and obstruction, and she’s still going on e.g. the role of Nigel Farage in various nefarious related activities. I recommend her twitter feed, for those who are interested.
Back to the vital question of the SCOTUS – sorry for the interruption!
I’d support expanding the court so long as doing so increases regional diversity. Perhaps the only thing in the universe that Justice Thomas and I agree on is that something is likely missing when all nine justices come from law schools within a couple hundred miles of each other, and their prior work was almost exclusively done in the NE urban corridor. Note, for example, how the term before this last one every single East Coast pundit got Arizona v. Arizona wrong because they didn’t account for Kennedy being a California and 10th Circuit boy, well aware of the giant can of worms that would be opened if the Court were to start at this very late date constraining which subjects could be addressed by ballot initiative, and which not.
I was seriously awaiting the Florida-Georgia water case to see how the justices might be thinking, because Texas-New Mexico-Colorado is going to get back to them one of these first days. The TX/NM/CO case is likely to be ground-breaking — it’s the first case I’m aware of where the decision is going to hinge on whether pumping from aquifers that are (maybe) hydrologically linked to surface water counts against limits on surface-water diversions. Here’s a subject area where the Court has original jurisdiction, it’s (regionally very) important, and the Court seems to me to be woefully ignorant.
But I’m peculiar that way.
I’d support expanding the court so long as doing so increases regional diversity. Perhaps the only thing in the universe that Justice Thomas and I agree on is that something is likely missing when all nine justices come from law schools within a couple hundred miles of each other, and their prior work was almost exclusively done in the NE urban corridor. Note, for example, how the term before this last one every single East Coast pundit got Arizona v. Arizona wrong because they didn’t account for Kennedy being a California and 10th Circuit boy, well aware of the giant can of worms that would be opened if the Court were to start at this very late date constraining which subjects could be addressed by ballot initiative, and which not.
I was seriously awaiting the Florida-Georgia water case to see how the justices might be thinking, because Texas-New Mexico-Colorado is going to get back to them one of these first days. The TX/NM/CO case is likely to be ground-breaking — it’s the first case I’m aware of where the decision is going to hinge on whether pumping from aquifers that are (maybe) hydrologically linked to surface water counts against limits on surface-water diversions. Here’s a subject area where the Court has original jurisdiction, it’s (regionally very) important, and the Court seems to me to be woefully ignorant.
But I’m peculiar that way.
perhaps justice Thomas would like to help address this regional imbalance by stepping down from his seat!
🙂
perhaps justice Thomas would like to help address this regional imbalance by stepping down from his seat!
🙂
perhaps justice Thomas would like to help address this regional imbalance by stepping down from his seat!
Russell, you really, really do NOT want that. Consider, you would be giving Trump (actually the Federalist Society) a chance to replace an 84 year old arch conservative with a 40 year old one.
perhaps justice Thomas would like to help address this regional imbalance by stepping down from his seat!
Russell, you really, really do NOT want that. Consider, you would be giving Trump (actually the Federalist Society) a chance to replace an 84 year old arch conservative with a 40 year old one.
you are correct. i withdraw my suggestion.
you are correct. i withdraw my suggestion.
This term, Gorsuch, a Federalist Society pick, voted on the liberal side of a couple of cases. Kennedy, with a swing voting propensity to disappoint liberals, conservatives, and libertarians, voted on the conservative side of all of this term’s cases. Kennedy probably has closer to a libertarian viewpoint than any of the other justices, but that’s not saying much.
This term, Gorsuch, a Federalist Society pick, voted on the liberal side of a couple of cases. Kennedy, with a swing voting propensity to disappoint liberals, conservatives, and libertarians, voted on the conservative side of all of this term’s cases. Kennedy probably has closer to a libertarian viewpoint than any of the other justices, but that’s not saying much.
…a California and 10th Circuit boy…
Fingers disconnected from brain, I guess — Kennedy was from the 9th.
…a California and 10th Circuit boy…
Fingers disconnected from brain, I guess — Kennedy was from the 9th.
We knew what you meant, Michael. After all, there are only 9 Circuits.
We knew what you meant, Michael. After all, there are only 9 Circuits.
Thomas is 70 years old.
It’s bad news all the way round, dead or alive.
Thomas is 70 years old.
It’s bad news all the way round, dead or alive.
We knew what you meant, Michael. After all, there are only 9 Circuits.
It was a particularly embarrassing error, as I can (if I’m ambitious) bicycle down to the building where the 10th Circuit meets.
We knew what you meant, Michael. After all, there are only 9 Circuits.
It was a particularly embarrassing error, as I can (if I’m ambitious) bicycle down to the building where the 10th Circuit meets.
What can be done?
I hear that some guy named Lenin asked that very question. But then I guess I’m a bomb thrower.*
So, what next? Given the GOP control of all 3 branches of government, there is not much that can be done. Nonetheless political struggle must continue. What else ya’ going to do?
Speculating forward?
1. Win more elections. It all starts here.
2. Once elections are won, consolidate power. The GOP has used gerrymander and voter suppression. They play the power game the way it should be played. Dems also do this, but not as effectively. In addition, there are institutional requirements that favor the GOP (2 Senators/state which see).
3. Therefore, any scenario that begins to circumvent a 6-3 or worse wingnut Court starts here with an assumption of Dems having a good deal of “political capital” (no shit, Sherlock).
3. and here goes.
4. Admit DC and Puerto Rico as states.
5. Pass legislation that overturns repugnant SC decisions to the greatest extent possible. Not all of these decisions are “constitutional” in nature….i.e., remanded back to a lower court.
6. Adopt Constitutional Amendments. (assumes a LOT of capital).
7. Expand the lower courts (Roberts has called for this repeatedly…humor him). Appoint a lot of young liberals to the bench.
8. Eliminate the Senate filibuster in toto. It was always a tool of reactionaries. Throw it in the dustbin of history where it belongs.
Roosevelt’s court packing play foundered on the shoals of the racist and reactionary southern block that was an essential part of the Democratic coalition supporting New Deal Legislation.
Given the ongoing ideological sorting we see, this will most likely not be a consideration if a one side or the other tries to do that in the future. If they think they absolutely have to do so to ensure their political viability. I have no doubt that, if the shoe was on the other foot, the GOP would do so if they felt it was an existential necessity.
Therefore, the Democratic Party cannot help but do likewise.
This is the world we are moving into.
Whose side are you on?
*It’s been decades, but it’s like riding a bicycle.
What can be done?
I hear that some guy named Lenin asked that very question. But then I guess I’m a bomb thrower.*
So, what next? Given the GOP control of all 3 branches of government, there is not much that can be done. Nonetheless political struggle must continue. What else ya’ going to do?
Speculating forward?
1. Win more elections. It all starts here.
2. Once elections are won, consolidate power. The GOP has used gerrymander and voter suppression. They play the power game the way it should be played. Dems also do this, but not as effectively. In addition, there are institutional requirements that favor the GOP (2 Senators/state which see).
3. Therefore, any scenario that begins to circumvent a 6-3 or worse wingnut Court starts here with an assumption of Dems having a good deal of “political capital” (no shit, Sherlock).
3. and here goes.
4. Admit DC and Puerto Rico as states.
5. Pass legislation that overturns repugnant SC decisions to the greatest extent possible. Not all of these decisions are “constitutional” in nature….i.e., remanded back to a lower court.
6. Adopt Constitutional Amendments. (assumes a LOT of capital).
7. Expand the lower courts (Roberts has called for this repeatedly…humor him). Appoint a lot of young liberals to the bench.
8. Eliminate the Senate filibuster in toto. It was always a tool of reactionaries. Throw it in the dustbin of history where it belongs.
Roosevelt’s court packing play foundered on the shoals of the racist and reactionary southern block that was an essential part of the Democratic coalition supporting New Deal Legislation.
Given the ongoing ideological sorting we see, this will most likely not be a consideration if a one side or the other tries to do that in the future. If they think they absolutely have to do so to ensure their political viability. I have no doubt that, if the shoe was on the other foot, the GOP would do so if they felt it was an existential necessity.
Therefore, the Democratic Party cannot help but do likewise.
This is the world we are moving into.
Whose side are you on?
*It’s been decades, but it’s like riding a bicycle.
1. Win more elections. It all starts here.
Specifically, win state elections, especially in 2020. Because those are the folks, in most states, who will draw the legislative districts for the next decade.** You don’t need total control. But you have to have at least one house of the legislature if you don’t want to get gerrymandered. Again.
Failing to (successfully) elect supporters in 2010 was probably Obama’s greatest failure.
** After that, demographics (on current trends) will mean that a party like today’s GOP becomes a lost cause. Even with brilliant gerrymandering.
1. Win more elections. It all starts here.
Specifically, win state elections, especially in 2020. Because those are the folks, in most states, who will draw the legislative districts for the next decade.** You don’t need total control. But you have to have at least one house of the legislature if you don’t want to get gerrymandered. Again.
Failing to (successfully) elect supporters in 2010 was probably Obama’s greatest failure.
** After that, demographics (on current trends) will mean that a party like today’s GOP becomes a lost cause. Even with brilliant gerrymandering.
Sebastian, you said that
In the parts of the blogosphere and social media world I inhabit,
so I’m wondering if you could link to some of those places. I’m assuming that this one
http://crookedtimber.org/2018/06/26/breakdown-values/#comments
is one of the places, but what surprises me is that only a few people seem to be up for it and it’s not a thought out plan, it’s more a cri de coeur, as most of the people here aren’t really for it, certainly as a first step. jack lecou is the only one whose ‘for’ it, in the sense that it could be part of a larger strategy, but from your descriptions, it sounds like people are proposing this as a panacea. I’m always looking at these sorts of things from the outside, so any pointers would be appreciated.
This also seems significant
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/394933-manchin-warns-trump-against-picking-court-nominee-who-will-overturn-roe-v
Sebastian, you said that
In the parts of the blogosphere and social media world I inhabit,
so I’m wondering if you could link to some of those places. I’m assuming that this one
http://crookedtimber.org/2018/06/26/breakdown-values/#comments
is one of the places, but what surprises me is that only a few people seem to be up for it and it’s not a thought out plan, it’s more a cri de coeur, as most of the people here aren’t really for it, certainly as a first step. jack lecou is the only one whose ‘for’ it, in the sense that it could be part of a larger strategy, but from your descriptions, it sounds like people are proposing this as a panacea. I’m always looking at these sorts of things from the outside, so any pointers would be appreciated.
This also seems significant
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/394933-manchin-warns-trump-against-picking-court-nominee-who-will-overturn-roe-v
Failing to (successfully) elect supporters in 2010 was probably Obama’s greatest failure.
Yes. Only Democrats have agency (insert Al Gore sigh here). Just what, specifically, should Obama, all by himself mind you, have done?
Failing to (successfully) elect supporters in 2010 was probably Obama’s greatest failure.
Yes. Only Democrats have agency (insert Al Gore sigh here). Just what, specifically, should Obama, all by himself mind you, have done?
As leader of his party, he could provide focus. In particular, focus on winning races for state legislatures.
He’s obviously not the only one with agency; other Democrats could have figured it out, too. But he did have that agency — allocation of national party resources was within his purview.
As leader of his party, he could provide focus. In particular, focus on winning races for state legislatures.
He’s obviously not the only one with agency; other Democrats could have figured it out, too. But he did have that agency — allocation of national party resources was within his purview.
1. Win more elections. It all starts here.
Specifically, win state elections,
win anything you can win. dogcatcher, head of the water and sewer department, county clerk, selectman or woman, mayor, state rep or senator, governor.
that said, yes, strategically state office will control redistricting after the 2020 census in most places. so win those.
1. Win more elections. It all starts here.
Specifically, win state elections,
win anything you can win. dogcatcher, head of the water and sewer department, county clerk, selectman or woman, mayor, state rep or senator, governor.
that said, yes, strategically state office will control redistricting after the 2020 census in most places. so win those.
Specifically, win state elections…
More specifically, win control of state legislatures. Not just for redistricting; the trigger laws and such that everyone’s talking about are state laws. I regularly recommend people read The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care). Local funding. Local issues. Targeting districts, both those with a strong person on your side or a weak opponent. To paraphrase one of the funders, who was gay, “Electing an environmentalist Democrat who can win a district on those issues is more important than whether she’s pro-gay or anti-gay. She’s a Democrat. A vote for Democratic leadership in the chamber. And she can be negotiated with — a pro-gay vote in exchange for a pro-environment vote.”
Full disclosure: I was a member of the non-partisan permanent legislative budget staff in Colorado when this was happening and met, at least superficially, most of the players in the book. I worked with Rob Witwer’s dad quite a bit — he was trying to get a large state software system back on track after the mess his predecessor had made of the purchase, and I was the staffer stuck with getting the budget committee accurate information and a set of not-impossible options to choose from.
Specifically, win state elections…
More specifically, win control of state legislatures. Not just for redistricting; the trigger laws and such that everyone’s talking about are state laws. I regularly recommend people read The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care). Local funding. Local issues. Targeting districts, both those with a strong person on your side or a weak opponent. To paraphrase one of the funders, who was gay, “Electing an environmentalist Democrat who can win a district on those issues is more important than whether she’s pro-gay or anti-gay. She’s a Democrat. A vote for Democratic leadership in the chamber. And she can be negotiated with — a pro-gay vote in exchange for a pro-environment vote.”
Full disclosure: I was a member of the non-partisan permanent legislative budget staff in Colorado when this was happening and met, at least superficially, most of the players in the book. I worked with Rob Witwer’s dad quite a bit — he was trying to get a large state software system back on track after the mess his predecessor had made of the purchase, and I was the staffer stuck with getting the budget committee accurate information and a set of not-impossible options to choose from.
Regarding the fascism discussion….
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/james-mattis-must-reject-donald-trumps-unlawful-order-for-the-military-to-intern-civilians.html
Regarding the fascism discussion….
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/james-mattis-must-reject-donald-trumps-unlawful-order-for-the-military-to-intern-civilians.html
At my local Keeping Families Together rally. Best sign: the one lady’s back reading
At my local Keeping Families Together rally. Best sign: the one lady’s back reading
Just a note to memorialize the fact that one of two things has to be true:
1) Susan Collins (R-ME) is stupid; or
2) Susan Collins thinks YOU are stupid.
From this:
My own opinion is that 2) is true. When Collins says she would not support a Supreme Court nominee who had “demonstrated hostility” toward Roe v. Wade, she means that a SCOTUS nominee is OK by her if said nominee never marched in a “pro-life” rally carrying a blown-up photograph of a fetus. (Or at least, was never caught doing so on camera.) And remember: Susan Collins is a “moderate” Republican.
–TP
Just a note to memorialize the fact that one of two things has to be true:
1) Susan Collins (R-ME) is stupid; or
2) Susan Collins thinks YOU are stupid.
From this:
My own opinion is that 2) is true. When Collins says she would not support a Supreme Court nominee who had “demonstrated hostility” toward Roe v. Wade, she means that a SCOTUS nominee is OK by her if said nominee never marched in a “pro-life” rally carrying a blown-up photograph of a fetus. (Or at least, was never caught doing so on camera.) And remember: Susan Collins is a “moderate” Republican.
–TP
Tony, perhaps it would be worthwhile to spend less energy on denouncing Senator Collins, and concentrate instead on how to convince her (and others) to do the right thing. Plenty of time to hurl insults after the battle is over.
Tony, perhaps it would be worthwhile to spend less energy on denouncing Senator Collins, and concentrate instead on how to convince her (and others) to do the right thing. Plenty of time to hurl insults after the battle is over.
Surrender first, fight later?
OK, sure. Just tell me how to “convince her (and others) to do the right thing”. Also, what’s “the right thing”?
In any case, please note that I said my personal opinion is 2), not 1). I think Collins is smart enough to count on a supine media and a poorly-informed electorate to interpret “demonstrated” in her favor.
–TP
Surrender first, fight later?
OK, sure. Just tell me how to “convince her (and others) to do the right thing”. Also, what’s “the right thing”?
In any case, please note that I said my personal opinion is 2), not 1). I think Collins is smart enough to count on a supine media and a poorly-informed electorate to interpret “demonstrated” in her favor.
–TP
“I actually don’t,” Collins said.
She is not stupid. That leaves delusional or lying.
“I actually don’t,” Collins said.
She is not stupid. That leaves delusional or lying.
How?
Well obviously if she’s going to vote on principle there’s no need. So the thing to focus on is expedience. Especially since voting on principle is ever so much easier if it’s expedience as well.
So, you make the case that doing what you consider the right thing will be a vote winner and/or that failing to do so would be a vote loser.
Note that this doesn’t just apply to Collins. It’s probably worthwhile applied to Murkowski, Heitkamp, etc.
It’s not “surrender first”. It’s don’t gratuitously make enemies out of people you need to convince to be allies. Failure to remember that has the GOP on the fast track to permanent minority status. Why duplicate their mistake?
How?
Well obviously if she’s going to vote on principle there’s no need. So the thing to focus on is expedience. Especially since voting on principle is ever so much easier if it’s expedience as well.
So, you make the case that doing what you consider the right thing will be a vote winner and/or that failing to do so would be a vote loser.
Note that this doesn’t just apply to Collins. It’s probably worthwhile applied to Murkowski, Heitkamp, etc.
It’s not “surrender first”. It’s don’t gratuitously make enemies out of people you need to convince to be allies. Failure to remember that has the GOP on the fast track to permanent minority status. Why duplicate their mistake?
wj,
What I consider the right thing is to vote against any nominee other than Merrick Garland, either before or after the mid-terms. I will eat a MAGA hat if you think Collins has that much principle.
To be fair, I don’t think Heitcamp, Manchin, or Donnelly have that much principle either. But they’re not in He, Trump’s majority party yet. (If they worry that standing on principle will cost them their seats, I wonder why they don’t switch parties right now and run as incumbent Republicans.) Let us Democrats work on those Republican wannabes, and we’ll leave you to persuade the Republican “moderates”. Let’s see which of us has the harder job.
–TP
wj,
What I consider the right thing is to vote against any nominee other than Merrick Garland, either before or after the mid-terms. I will eat a MAGA hat if you think Collins has that much principle.
To be fair, I don’t think Heitcamp, Manchin, or Donnelly have that much principle either. But they’re not in He, Trump’s majority party yet. (If they worry that standing on principle will cost them their seats, I wonder why they don’t switch parties right now and run as incumbent Republicans.) Let us Democrats work on those Republican wannabes, and we’ll leave you to persuade the Republican “moderates”. Let’s see which of us has the harder job.
–TP
TP: What I consider the right thing is to vote against any nominee other than Merrick Garland, either before or after the mid-terms. I will eat a MAGA hat if you think Collins has that much principle.
Why on earth would she apply that principle now if she didn’t apply it in relation to Gorsuch?
Here is what she said: “I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law,” Collins said in an interview with Jake Tapper on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday.
She is playing her usual slippery, carefully calculated word games. “Who demonstrated hostility” is another variety of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
She has also said this (via her spokesperson): “‘Senator Collins does not apply ideological litmus tests to nominees,’ Clark said.”
So ya know, “no litmus test” means no litmus test in either direction. Don’t ask, don’t tell. If she doesn’t apply the litmus test by asking what the nominee would do with Roe v. Wade, then later on she can say she didn’t know.
Her faith in Roberts and Gorsuch (see the first link) gives her another way to weasel out of anything firm later on.
She. Does. This. Every. Time.
TP: What I consider the right thing is to vote against any nominee other than Merrick Garland, either before or after the mid-terms. I will eat a MAGA hat if you think Collins has that much principle.
Why on earth would she apply that principle now if she didn’t apply it in relation to Gorsuch?
Here is what she said: “I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law,” Collins said in an interview with Jake Tapper on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday.
She is playing her usual slippery, carefully calculated word games. “Who demonstrated hostility” is another variety of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
She has also said this (via her spokesperson): “‘Senator Collins does not apply ideological litmus tests to nominees,’ Clark said.”
So ya know, “no litmus test” means no litmus test in either direction. Don’t ask, don’t tell. If she doesn’t apply the litmus test by asking what the nominee would do with Roe v. Wade, then later on she can say she didn’t know.
Her faith in Roberts and Gorsuch (see the first link) gives her another way to weasel out of anything firm later on.
She. Does. This. Every. Time.
Well if what you want is Garland and nobody else, then you’re right, you might as well surrender now. ‘Cause we both know that won’t happen. It doesn’t even matter if 3/4 of the Senators would vote to approve him, because Trump wouldn’t nominate him and McConnell wouldn’t let it come to a vote if he did.
Now if you are willing to take someone who is a moderate (really moderate) Republican, then there are constructive things you could do. But if not, feel free to fill the Mcmanus Memorial Futile Venting position.
Well if what you want is Garland and nobody else, then you’re right, you might as well surrender now. ‘Cause we both know that won’t happen. It doesn’t even matter if 3/4 of the Senators would vote to approve him, because Trump wouldn’t nominate him and McConnell wouldn’t let it come to a vote if he did.
Now if you are willing to take someone who is a moderate (really moderate) Republican, then there are constructive things you could do. But if not, feel free to fill the Mcmanus Memorial Futile Venting position.
Janie, sure she’ll weasel, that’s what politicians do. (Some are better at doing so subtly, but anyone who manages to get elected does it.) The trick is to convince her that, whether she applies litmus tests or not, she has a significant number of constituents, whose votes she will need, who do on this one.
Janie, sure she’ll weasel, that’s what politicians do. (Some are better at doing so subtly, but anyone who manages to get elected does it.) The trick is to convince her that, whether she applies litmus tests or not, she has a significant number of constituents, whose votes she will need, who do on this one.
The question of “whose votes she will need” is not so bloody simple. If she votes one way, she’ll almost surely be primaried. If she votes the other, she may actually, finally, lose enough of her statewide popularity to lose the general.
Or maybe she’ll retire, who knows.
The question of “whose votes she will need” is not so bloody simple. If she votes one way, she’ll almost surely be primaried. If she votes the other, she may actually, finally, lose enough of her statewide popularity to lose the general.
Or maybe she’ll retire, who knows.
Well if what you want is Garland and nobody else, then you’re right, you might as well surrender now.
Well, I go in with the presumption that Trump’s shortlist is going to be 10 pounds in a 5 pound bag. So pushing Collins to be more clear with what she will accept seems to be less pushing away a possible ally and more like acknowledging her previous habits.
This wikipedia article has some interesting information
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_Supreme_Court_candidates
Well if what you want is Garland and nobody else, then you’re right, you might as well surrender now.
Well, I go in with the presumption that Trump’s shortlist is going to be 10 pounds in a 5 pound bag. So pushing Collins to be more clear with what she will accept seems to be less pushing away a possible ally and more like acknowledging her previous habits.
This wikipedia article has some interesting information
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_Supreme_Court_candidates
perhaps it would be worthwhile to spend less energy on denouncing Senator Collins, and concentrate instead on how to convince her (and others) to do the right thing.
I second TP’s query…what, exactly, is the “right thing? And didn’t we go down this road before with respect to the battle over the ACA? How, exactly could she be convinced? What, could we say to her?
No nominee for the SC will volunteer to say they want to overturn Roe, but a conservative court will undoubtedly do so.
Given this, overturning Roe is obviously not a “dealbreaker” for Collins.
If “doing the right thing” is of any importance, then a couple GOP Senators threatening to caucus with the Dems would get “the right thing” (I’m looking at you, Jeff Flake).
But this will never, never, happen. I don’t care how much sugar is ladled on trying to woo them. They won’t go over to the Dems.
Similarly, Joe Lieberman took a lot of heat from the Democratic Left. Nonetheless, his vote was absolutely required to pass the ACA. So where were all the Wall Street Journal editorials imploring the GOP to be nice and sing sweet lullabies to Joe?
Tell me that, wj?
Thanks.
perhaps it would be worthwhile to spend less energy on denouncing Senator Collins, and concentrate instead on how to convince her (and others) to do the right thing.
I second TP’s query…what, exactly, is the “right thing? And didn’t we go down this road before with respect to the battle over the ACA? How, exactly could she be convinced? What, could we say to her?
No nominee for the SC will volunteer to say they want to overturn Roe, but a conservative court will undoubtedly do so.
Given this, overturning Roe is obviously not a “dealbreaker” for Collins.
If “doing the right thing” is of any importance, then a couple GOP Senators threatening to caucus with the Dems would get “the right thing” (I’m looking at you, Jeff Flake).
But this will never, never, happen. I don’t care how much sugar is ladled on trying to woo them. They won’t go over to the Dems.
Similarly, Joe Lieberman took a lot of heat from the Democratic Left. Nonetheless, his vote was absolutely required to pass the ACA. So where were all the Wall Street Journal editorials imploring the GOP to be nice and sing sweet lullabies to Joe?
Tell me that, wj?
Thanks.
what, exactly, is the “right thing?
Sorry, I thought that was obvious. It’s whatever you think is the right thing, the thing you want to happen. What else?
As for the GOP failing to woo Lieberman, see what the result of that was for them. Sportsmanship doesn’t require you to be inept just because the other side is massively incompetent. IMHO anyway.
what, exactly, is the “right thing?
Sorry, I thought that was obvious. It’s whatever you think is the right thing, the thing you want to happen. What else?
As for the GOP failing to woo Lieberman, see what the result of that was for them. Sportsmanship doesn’t require you to be inept just because the other side is massively incompetent. IMHO anyway.
I don’t expect a Trump court to overturn Roe anytime soon anyway – rather I think they will salami slice it to death with decisions which don’t explicitly overturn it. In the same way the court has started to gut voting rights, union rights etc….
Equally concerning is that senators (step forward Lindsay Graham) are already indicating that they won’t reject Trump nominees who would not recuse themselves over a case which involves Trump.
And right on cue, a case which involves the constitutionality of Mueller’s appointment:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/28/roger-stone-aide-robert-mueller-subpoena-682318
I don’t expect a Trump court to overturn Roe anytime soon anyway – rather I think they will salami slice it to death with decisions which don’t explicitly overturn it. In the same way the court has started to gut voting rights, union rights etc….
Equally concerning is that senators (step forward Lindsay Graham) are already indicating that they won’t reject Trump nominees who would not recuse themselves over a case which involves Trump.
And right on cue, a case which involves the constitutionality of Mueller’s appointment:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/28/roger-stone-aide-robert-mueller-subpoena-682318
Apologies, Lindsey.
The jerk.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/01/graham-trump-justice-russia-689579
Apologies, Lindsey.
The jerk.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/01/graham-trump-justice-russia-689579
Full personhood for foetuses will come later.
And don’t expect any questions about that to be answered by a nominee.
Full personhood for foetuses will come later.
And don’t expect any questions about that to be answered by a nominee.
if you are willing to take someone who is a moderate (really moderate) Republican
that will not be on offer
if you are willing to take someone who is a moderate (really moderate) Republican
that will not be on offer
if you are willing to take someone who is a moderate (really moderate) Republican
that will not be on offer…
I’m curious about just what those ‘constructive things you could do’ might be, too.
Unless wj is talking about a Democrat controlled Senate after the midterms…
if you are willing to take someone who is a moderate (really moderate) Republican
that will not be on offer…
I’m curious about just what those ‘constructive things you could do’ might be, too.
Unless wj is talking about a Democrat controlled Senate after the midterms…
The fundamental problem with any opposition to court packing is that if we ever reached the position where the court was a meaningful obstacle to Republican interests, they will pack the court. So either the court is a fundamentally conservative tool, or it will be destroyed – that’s the status quo, just like with the filabuster.
So lets just destroy it.
The fundamental problem with any opposition to court packing is that if we ever reached the position where the court was a meaningful obstacle to Republican interests, they will pack the court. So either the court is a fundamentally conservative tool, or it will be destroyed – that’s the status quo, just like with the filabuster.
So lets just destroy it.
I’m not sure how to articulate it, but this article got me thinking about the discussion on this thread, mostly among liberals/Democrats, and how differently it seems to go than what I imagine as the “just do it” approach conservatives/Republicans might take.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/psychologists-looked-in-the-mirror-and-saw-a-bunch-of-liberals/
Maybe it’s about self-doubt or perceiving ambiguity. I’m not sure. (That’s funny, maybe. Or is it?)
I’m not sure how to articulate it, but this article got me thinking about the discussion on this thread, mostly among liberals/Democrats, and how differently it seems to go than what I imagine as the “just do it” approach conservatives/Republicans might take.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/psychologists-looked-in-the-mirror-and-saw-a-bunch-of-liberals/
Maybe it’s about self-doubt or perceiving ambiguity. I’m not sure. (That’s funny, maybe. Or is it?)
Writing from phone so I can’t be as long winded. 😉
One way of looking at it is: the first opportunity for Court packing is now. Republicans are in the position to do it now if it were a good idea for a narrow majority in charge of Congress and the Presidency to do so. Would it be politically a good idea to do it now?
Writing from phone so I can’t be as long winded. 😉
One way of looking at it is: the first opportunity for Court packing is now. Republicans are in the position to do it now if it were a good idea for a narrow majority in charge of Congress and the Presidency to do so. Would it be politically a good idea to do it now?
Given that the likely next departees from the court are ‘liberals’, the GOP has no need to do that now. They just need to keep senate OR presidency to prevent the court from regaining balance in the forseeable future.
And I would not put it beyond McConnell to ‘advice and consent’ with a mere relative majority abusing the temporary absence of some Dem senators, if he can’t get the Kennedy replacement through with 50+Pence before the midterms.
Remember btw that McConnell promised that he would, if need be, not allow Hillary Clinton any filling of SOTUS positions, even if she held the presidency for 8 years.
He will go as far as needed at any given moment, and at the moment his side does not yet need court packing.
Given that the likely next departees from the court are ‘liberals’, the GOP has no need to do that now. They just need to keep senate OR presidency to prevent the court from regaining balance in the forseeable future.
And I would not put it beyond McConnell to ‘advice and consent’ with a mere relative majority abusing the temporary absence of some Dem senators, if he can’t get the Kennedy replacement through with 50+Pence before the midterms.
Remember btw that McConnell promised that he would, if need be, not allow Hillary Clinton any filling of SOTUS positions, even if she held the presidency for 8 years.
He will go as far as needed at any given moment, and at the moment his side does not yet need court packing.
if you are willing to take someone who is a moderate (really moderate) Republican
that will not be on offer
A more complete reply – Trump’s short list:
Brett Kavanaugh, Federalist Society contributor.
Thomas Hardiman, Federalist Society contributor.
Raymond Kethledge, Federalist Society contributor.
Amul Thapar, Federalist Society contributor.
Amy Coney Barrett, Federalist Society contributor.
Long march through the institutions, y’all. Our modern conservatives have read their Gramsci.
Social psychology’s left tilt has been widely discussed
One of the pre-eminent exponents of conservative governance in the 20th C offered her opinion that there is no such thing as society.
Perhaps that helps to explain it.
if you are willing to take someone who is a moderate (really moderate) Republican
that will not be on offer
A more complete reply – Trump’s short list:
Brett Kavanaugh, Federalist Society contributor.
Thomas Hardiman, Federalist Society contributor.
Raymond Kethledge, Federalist Society contributor.
Amul Thapar, Federalist Society contributor.
Amy Coney Barrett, Federalist Society contributor.
Long march through the institutions, y’all. Our modern conservatives have read their Gramsci.
Social psychology’s left tilt has been widely discussed
One of the pre-eminent exponents of conservative governance in the 20th C offered her opinion that there is no such thing as society.
Perhaps that helps to explain it.
I’m curious about just what those ‘constructive things you could do’ might be, too.
To start with, you do the things you do any time you are trying to lobby a Senator about anything. (“You” being a bunch of constituents rather than some deep-pockets lobbyist, of course.) You write letters. You send floods of e-mails. You make phone calls.
Then you show up at whatever Town Halls or campaign events are held around the state. Make your point civilly but emphatically.
Will those things work? I don’t know. But they seem a lot likely to work, more “constructive” if you will, than straight denunciations. And if you are sure that they won’t work, well then basically you are giving up before the battle starts — right?
I’m curious about just what those ‘constructive things you could do’ might be, too.
To start with, you do the things you do any time you are trying to lobby a Senator about anything. (“You” being a bunch of constituents rather than some deep-pockets lobbyist, of course.) You write letters. You send floods of e-mails. You make phone calls.
Then you show up at whatever Town Halls or campaign events are held around the state. Make your point civilly but emphatically.
Will those things work? I don’t know. But they seem a lot likely to work, more “constructive” if you will, than straight denunciations. And if you are sure that they won’t work, well then basically you are giving up before the battle starts — right?
if you are willing to take someone who is a moderate (really moderate) Republican
that will not be on offer…
Russell, you are almost certainly correct. At least for the first couple of nominees. But if those are rejected, Trump has some history of caving in the face of determined opposition. And besides, by that point the elections will be past — with luck the Senate will be tilted the other way then.**
** My personal happy fantasy is that the Democrats not only take Nevada, Arizona, and Tennessee. But Cruz manages to lose Texas as well. Which seems wildly unlikely. But I try to remember that nobody here would have predicted, a year ago, that we would have a Democratic Senator from Alabama!
if you are willing to take someone who is a moderate (really moderate) Republican
that will not be on offer…
Russell, you are almost certainly correct. At least for the first couple of nominees. But if those are rejected, Trump has some history of caving in the face of determined opposition. And besides, by that point the elections will be past — with luck the Senate will be tilted the other way then.**
** My personal happy fantasy is that the Democrats not only take Nevada, Arizona, and Tennessee. But Cruz manages to lose Texas as well. Which seems wildly unlikely. But I try to remember that nobody here would have predicted, a year ago, that we would have a Democratic Senator from Alabama!
Trump has some history of caving in the face of determined opposition
Trump’s style is to demand everything, and then work back from that. It is, I think, less a matter of “caving in the face of opposition” and more a matter of seeing what he can get away with.
So far, he’s gotten away with quite a lot.
The (D)’s may, possibly, flip the House. They will probably not flip the Senate. The Senate owns the advise and consent privilege.
If enough people make enough noise, maybe he’ll moderate his choice of nominee. Procedurally, I don’t really see a lever to enforce that.
So, make a lot of noise and hope for the best. I don’t expect to be pleased by whoever replaces Kennedy.
Trump has some history of caving in the face of determined opposition
Trump’s style is to demand everything, and then work back from that. It is, I think, less a matter of “caving in the face of opposition” and more a matter of seeing what he can get away with.
So far, he’s gotten away with quite a lot.
The (D)’s may, possibly, flip the House. They will probably not flip the Senate. The Senate owns the advise and consent privilege.
If enough people make enough noise, maybe he’ll moderate his choice of nominee. Procedurally, I don’t really see a lever to enforce that.
So, make a lot of noise and hope for the best. I don’t expect to be pleased by whoever replaces Kennedy.
I don’t expect to be pleased by whoever replaces Kennedy.
But how pleased were you, overall, with Kennedy himself? Yes, he swung the way you preferred on a handful of cases — mostly, IIRC, when it was a matter of a libertarian perspective overlapping a liberal one. But he was someone I would classify as definitely more conservative than liberal.
I don’t expect to be pleased by whoever replaces Kennedy.
But how pleased were you, overall, with Kennedy himself? Yes, he swung the way you preferred on a handful of cases — mostly, IIRC, when it was a matter of a libertarian perspective overlapping a liberal one. But he was someone I would classify as definitely more conservative than liberal.
But how pleased were you, overall, with Kennedy himself?
my feeling about Kennedy is “meh”, but that’s not really my point.
Kennedy’s leaving.
But how pleased were you, overall, with Kennedy himself?
my feeling about Kennedy is “meh”, but that’s not really my point.
Kennedy’s leaving.
Yes, but suppose you get “meh” again. You wouldn’t be pleased, of course. But you wouldn’t have lost anything either. And it’s probably the best you can get. Leaving aside the (faint) possibility of another Earl Warren type surprise….
Yes, but suppose you get “meh” again. You wouldn’t be pleased, of course. But you wouldn’t have lost anything either. And it’s probably the best you can get. Leaving aside the (faint) possibility of another Earl Warren type surprise….
As mentioned upthread, I doubt that “meh” will be on offer.
More on Coney Barrett.
Everyone is entitled to hold and practice whatever religious beliefs they wish. That said, I’m not sure how you square what appears to be evangelical fundamentalism of this stripe with a seat on the SCOTUS.
You show me “meh” and I’ll offer my thoughts about it. I’m not seeing it.
As mentioned upthread, I doubt that “meh” will be on offer.
More on Coney Barrett.
Everyone is entitled to hold and practice whatever religious beliefs they wish. That said, I’m not sure how you square what appears to be evangelical fundamentalism of this stripe with a seat on the SCOTUS.
You show me “meh” and I’ll offer my thoughts about it. I’m not seeing it.
I’m not seeing it either. Yet. “Yet” being the operative term. And I don’t think we will see it, until Trump’s first couple of nominees bounce. Recall that that’s how we ended up with Kennedy — Bork (who would have been awful) had to bounce first.
So, focus on how we might have a chance to bounce those first couple of nominees. One day at a time….
I’m not seeing it either. Yet. “Yet” being the operative term. And I don’t think we will see it, until Trump’s first couple of nominees bounce. Recall that that’s how we ended up with Kennedy — Bork (who would have been awful) had to bounce first.
So, focus on how we might have a chance to bounce those first couple of nominees. One day at a time….
He, Trump can make maximal demands and it’s just the Art of the Deal.
I, Tony P, can make maximal demands and it’s just futile denunciation.
Starting negotiations with the likes of Susan Collins by ceding half the ground is apparently what Democrats are expected to do. Sure, elections have consequences, but this attitude (which, to be fair, some Democrats do subscribe to) also has consequences.
The Democrats’ initial offer to Collins should be: vote down He, Trump’s nominees or we will drive you out of politics altogether in 2020. She may dismiss the threat, of course, but if “moderate Republicans” need to worry ONLY about primaries, then “moderate” is just a brand name, not a useful description.
–TP
He, Trump can make maximal demands and it’s just the Art of the Deal.
I, Tony P, can make maximal demands and it’s just futile denunciation.
Starting negotiations with the likes of Susan Collins by ceding half the ground is apparently what Democrats are expected to do. Sure, elections have consequences, but this attitude (which, to be fair, some Democrats do subscribe to) also has consequences.
The Democrats’ initial offer to Collins should be: vote down He, Trump’s nominees or we will drive you out of politics altogether in 2020. She may dismiss the threat, of course, but if “moderate Republicans” need to worry ONLY about primaries, then “moderate” is just a brand name, not a useful description.
–TP
“Given that the likely next departees from the court are ‘liberals’, the GOP has no need to do that now.”
Kind of, but that wasn’t the case one week ago, and they could have been Court packing then. And that doesn’t really speak to the problem anyway. With court packing they could RIGHT NOW have in place a majority of Alito/Gorsuch conservatives and not have had to deal with the Kennedy/Roberts types and it wouldn’t have been reversible until Democrats could get control of both halves of Congress and the Presidency–so at least 4 years from 2016. Did they not want a clear majority of Alito/Gorsuch conservatives on the court? Are Republicans not ruthless enough?
“Given that the likely next departees from the court are ‘liberals’, the GOP has no need to do that now.”
Kind of, but that wasn’t the case one week ago, and they could have been Court packing then. And that doesn’t really speak to the problem anyway. With court packing they could RIGHT NOW have in place a majority of Alito/Gorsuch conservatives and not have had to deal with the Kennedy/Roberts types and it wouldn’t have been reversible until Democrats could get control of both halves of Congress and the Presidency–so at least 4 years from 2016. Did they not want a clear majority of Alito/Gorsuch conservatives on the court? Are Republicans not ruthless enough?
Starting negotiations with the likes of Susan Collins by ceding half the ground is apparently what Democrats are expected to do.
No, not expected. It’s what Democrats would be smart to do. You catch more flies with honey. If that doesn’t work, there will be plenty of time to drive her out when she’s up next.
As for
He, Trump can make maximal demands and it’s just the Art of the Deal.
No. it’s just stupid. We look at what he “accomplished” with threats to Kim: North Korea got a bunch of its fondest desires, and Trump (and the US) got . . . nada. Trump can claim it’s “the art of the deal”, but it’s pretty obvious, to everybody but his brainless fans, that that’s total bull.
Starting negotiations with the likes of Susan Collins by ceding half the ground is apparently what Democrats are expected to do.
No, not expected. It’s what Democrats would be smart to do. You catch more flies with honey. If that doesn’t work, there will be plenty of time to drive her out when she’s up next.
As for
He, Trump can make maximal demands and it’s just the Art of the Deal.
No. it’s just stupid. We look at what he “accomplished” with threats to Kim: North Korea got a bunch of its fondest desires, and Trump (and the US) got . . . nada. Trump can claim it’s “the art of the deal”, but it’s pretty obvious, to everybody but his brainless fans, that that’s total bull.
I don’t think it’s that they are not ruthless enough rather than that they realise court packing might be too much for the handful of their ‘moderates’ in the Senate.
Attempting to pack the court with so slim a majority and failing is likely too big of a risk to be contemplated. Moreover, you can’t credibly blame the Democrats for partisan obstruction against so blatantly political a move; even your most credulous supporters will likely see through that.
In contrast, the most extreme of the potential nominees will be able to put up a set of bland answers in any nomination hearings, and it’s a tossup as to whether Collins and Murkowski will fold to the pressure which will be put on them.
There’s no downside in that approach; an attempt at court packing might lose an extra seat or two in November.
I don’t think it’s that they are not ruthless enough rather than that they realise court packing might be too much for the handful of their ‘moderates’ in the Senate.
Attempting to pack the court with so slim a majority and failing is likely too big of a risk to be contemplated. Moreover, you can’t credibly blame the Democrats for partisan obstruction against so blatantly political a move; even your most credulous supporters will likely see through that.
In contrast, the most extreme of the potential nominees will be able to put up a set of bland answers in any nomination hearings, and it’s a tossup as to whether Collins and Murkowski will fold to the pressure which will be put on them.
There’s no downside in that approach; an attempt at court packing might lose an extra seat or two in November.
I guess I’m unclear on how court packing would actually work, as a practical matter.
If I understand correctly, it will require legislation. Which means a (D) majority in both the House and Senate. And if there isn’t a (D) in the White House, it requires veto-proof majorities.
When do we expect all of that to happen? And if you have all of that, isn’t it more practical to just work around the SCOTUS?
I guess I’m unclear on how court packing would actually work, as a practical matter.
If I understand correctly, it will require legislation. Which means a (D) majority in both the House and Senate. And if there isn’t a (D) in the White House, it requires veto-proof majorities.
When do we expect all of that to happen? And if you have all of that, isn’t it more practical to just work around the SCOTUS?
Will those things work? What makes you think they are not being tried? She has constituents, many of whom do not agree with her. I would reasonably assume some of them write letters of varying degrees of opposition to her and mail them to her office. Some, no doubt, even show up at her town halls, if she holds them. I do not see the national punditry calling for her head, either.
It must be nice to be a Susan Collins who votes consistently for hard line right wing policies while successfully selling herself as a moderate.
But if those are rejected… I’d like to have some of what you are smoking.
And I don’t think we will see it, until Trump’s first couple of nominees bounce. Trump has been filling the federal bench with ideologues. A couple self-destructed under confirmation questioning, but the rest are sailing through a rubber stamp Senate.
It’s what Democrats would be smart to do. Like Obama’s “grand bargain”? Look, plenty of honey, enough for several lifetimes, was larded on Collins during the ACA battle.
You know what they say about negotiations, the first one to put forward a number loses. You are plumping for a strategy that has no relevance in today’s hothouse political atmosphere.
I don’t think it’s that they are not ruthless enough rather than that they realise court packing might be too much for the handful of their ‘moderates’ in the Senate.
Yup. Given the nearly unanimous (current) condemnation of FDR’s court packing plan…which was essentially killed by southern Democrats and “traditionalists”, this might be a line too far.
Are Republicans not ruthless enough? They are getting pretty much everything they want right now. Why rock the boat with a dubious court packing scheme? If they hold the Senate, they most likely could get 1 or 2 more Supremes.
Now you could speculate they should give it a try anyway, just to show how politically suicidal it is, so Democrats would NEVER consider such a move if given the opportunity.
My only hope right now (other than winning elections) is for GOP overreach. That tends to be the way things go from a historical perspective.
Will those things work? What makes you think they are not being tried? She has constituents, many of whom do not agree with her. I would reasonably assume some of them write letters of varying degrees of opposition to her and mail them to her office. Some, no doubt, even show up at her town halls, if she holds them. I do not see the national punditry calling for her head, either.
It must be nice to be a Susan Collins who votes consistently for hard line right wing policies while successfully selling herself as a moderate.
But if those are rejected… I’d like to have some of what you are smoking.
And I don’t think we will see it, until Trump’s first couple of nominees bounce. Trump has been filling the federal bench with ideologues. A couple self-destructed under confirmation questioning, but the rest are sailing through a rubber stamp Senate.
It’s what Democrats would be smart to do. Like Obama’s “grand bargain”? Look, plenty of honey, enough for several lifetimes, was larded on Collins during the ACA battle.
You know what they say about negotiations, the first one to put forward a number loses. You are plumping for a strategy that has no relevance in today’s hothouse political atmosphere.
I don’t think it’s that they are not ruthless enough rather than that they realise court packing might be too much for the handful of their ‘moderates’ in the Senate.
Yup. Given the nearly unanimous (current) condemnation of FDR’s court packing plan…which was essentially killed by southern Democrats and “traditionalists”, this might be a line too far.
Are Republicans not ruthless enough? They are getting pretty much everything they want right now. Why rock the boat with a dubious court packing scheme? If they hold the Senate, they most likely could get 1 or 2 more Supremes.
Now you could speculate they should give it a try anyway, just to show how politically suicidal it is, so Democrats would NEVER consider such a move if given the opportunity.
My only hope right now (other than winning elections) is for GOP overreach. That tends to be the way things go from a historical perspective.
and it’s a tossup as to whether Collins and Murkowski will fold to the pressure which will be put on them.
I would say “not likely” for Murkowski. But she did after all take on the right with her write-in campaign in 2010. On the other hand, she returned to the fold in 2016.
Collins? Not a chance in hell.
and it’s a tossup as to whether Collins and Murkowski will fold to the pressure which will be put on them.
I would say “not likely” for Murkowski. But she did after all take on the right with her write-in campaign in 2010. On the other hand, she returned to the fold in 2016.
Collins? Not a chance in hell.
And if you have all of that, isn’t it more practical to just work around the SCOTUS?
You can only work around them so much, short of passing amendments to the constitution. If conservatives have their court in place, they’re taking everything to court.
And if you have all of that, isn’t it more practical to just work around the SCOTUS?
You can only work around them so much, short of passing amendments to the constitution. If conservatives have their court in place, they’re taking everything to court.
for wj:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/394906-left-mounts-heavy-pressure-campaign-on-swing-senators-over-supreme-court
for wj:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/394906-left-mounts-heavy-pressure-campaign-on-swing-senators-over-supreme-court
You are plumping for a strategy that has no relevance in today’s hothouse political atmosphere.
OK, I’m open to listening to alternatives. What strategy do you think will achieve a positive outcome this year? Not just make you feel righteous, but actually keep Trump’s pick from getting confirmed. And why do you think it will work?
You are plumping for a strategy that has no relevance in today’s hothouse political atmosphere.
OK, I’m open to listening to alternatives. What strategy do you think will achieve a positive outcome this year? Not just make you feel righteous, but actually keep Trump’s pick from getting confirmed. And why do you think it will work?
Maybe the point is that nothing will work.
Maybe the point is that nothing will work.
What bobby said, 4:04.
(Particularly as he agreed with me…:)
What bobby said, 4:04.
(Particularly as he agreed with me…:)
Trump dies of congestive heart failure.
Pence goes into a coma with the goofy “here I am master” look on his face upon realizing he finally “made it”.
Ryan is tapped, but before he can take the Oath, he is taken out of the Speakership by the Freedom Caucus in a protracted GOP political civil war.
In all this turmoil, the elections come and go, and give the House and Senate to the Democrats.
That’s about all I got.
Trump dies of congestive heart failure.
Pence goes into a coma with the goofy “here I am master” look on his face upon realizing he finally “made it”.
Ryan is tapped, but before he can take the Oath, he is taken out of the Speakership by the Freedom Caucus in a protracted GOP political civil war.
In all this turmoil, the elections come and go, and give the House and Senate to the Democrats.
That’s about all I got.
If conservatives have their court in place, they’re taking everything to court.
But, but, but… they’ve been telling us for a generation that the only legitimate path to policy is through the legislature, not the anti-democratic, un-elected courts.
Are you telling me they weren’t telling us the truth?
Ha ha ha!
Win elections. You can’t pack the court until you win elections. A lot of them.
If packing the court still looks like a plan after you win a lot of elections, re-visit.
If conservatives have their court in place, they’re taking everything to court.
But, but, but… they’ve been telling us for a generation that the only legitimate path to policy is through the legislature, not the anti-democratic, un-elected courts.
Are you telling me they weren’t telling us the truth?
Ha ha ha!
Win elections. You can’t pack the court until you win elections. A lot of them.
If packing the court still looks like a plan after you win a lot of elections, re-visit.
Ha ha ha!
We’re having an “if you don’t laugh, you’ll cry” moment.
Ha ha ha!
We’re having an “if you don’t laugh, you’ll cry” moment.
Now you could speculate… That the GOP is perfectly happy to NEVER overturn Roe because its existence serves to motivate the base to vote for the GOP so they can dismantle the regulatory New Deal state….but that may be getting a bit too much into the weeds.
Now you could speculate… That the GOP is perfectly happy to NEVER overturn Roe because its existence serves to motivate the base to vote for the GOP so they can dismantle the regulatory New Deal state….but that may be getting a bit too much into the weeds.
Bobby, that’s what I’m talking about. May not work, of course. But it seems like the best shot. And even if it’s 5:1 against, that’s still better than just giving up.
Bobby, that’s what I’m talking about. May not work, of course. But it seems like the best shot. And even if it’s 5:1 against, that’s still better than just giving up.
Now you could speculate… That the GOP is perfectly happy to NEVER overturn Roe because its existence serves to motivate the base to vote for the GOP so they can dismantle the regulatory New Deal state.
Yup, probably a better approach to remove it de facto while keeping it on the books as motivation.
Now you could speculate… That the GOP is perfectly happy to NEVER overturn Roe because its existence serves to motivate the base to vote for the GOP so they can dismantle the regulatory New Deal state.
Yup, probably a better approach to remove it de facto while keeping it on the books as motivation.
hsh: We’re having an “if you don’t laugh, you’ll cry” moment.
We’re also having an “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” moment.
That’s not a “moderate” sentiment, of course. It’s a Barry-Goldwater-1964 sentiment. Moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue, and so forth. A sentiment that only RWNJs are entitled to in today’s America.
I have suggested before now that “right to die” is likely to become a hotter issue than “right to life” as we boomers amble closer to the grave. Sex is fun to argue about, but death affects more people. The RWNJ SCOTUS that He, Trump and Mitch McConnell and the Federalist Society have lusted after all these years is not likely to confine itself to forcing women to bear children. It will also try to force you, gentle reader, to bear as much pain at the end of your life as Holy Scripture requires. Because Life, you know.
I could be wrong, of course. But since I would be past menopause even if I were a woman, that’s what I worry about when I contemplate a RWNJ majority on the SCOTUS for the rest of my life.
–TP
hsh: We’re having an “if you don’t laugh, you’ll cry” moment.
We’re also having an “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” moment.
That’s not a “moderate” sentiment, of course. It’s a Barry-Goldwater-1964 sentiment. Moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue, and so forth. A sentiment that only RWNJs are entitled to in today’s America.
I have suggested before now that “right to die” is likely to become a hotter issue than “right to life” as we boomers amble closer to the grave. Sex is fun to argue about, but death affects more people. The RWNJ SCOTUS that He, Trump and Mitch McConnell and the Federalist Society have lusted after all these years is not likely to confine itself to forcing women to bear children. It will also try to force you, gentle reader, to bear as much pain at the end of your life as Holy Scripture requires. Because Life, you know.
I could be wrong, of course. But since I would be past menopause even if I were a woman, that’s what I worry about when I contemplate a RWNJ majority on the SCOTUS for the rest of my life.
–TP
bobbyp: Some, no doubt, even show up at her town halls, if she holds them.
She does not deign to hold town halls.
wj: What strategy do you think will achieve a positive outcome this year? Not just make you feel righteous, but actually keep Trump’s pick from getting confirmed. And why do you think it will work? … that’s still better than just giving up
I could do a series of “what bobbyp” said here, including his 4:04 on FDR’s court-packing, and his 4:30. The “Not just make you feel righteous” would be insulting coming from almost anyone but wj; since I know wj to be as unsnarky and untroll-ey as they come, I can only assume he’s trying to be a friendly cheerleader for not giving up.
Part of my strategy for not giving up is to continue badgering wj to face reality and stop hoping for the revival of a sane Republican party.
bobbyp: Some, no doubt, even show up at her town halls, if she holds them.
She does not deign to hold town halls.
wj: What strategy do you think will achieve a positive outcome this year? Not just make you feel righteous, but actually keep Trump’s pick from getting confirmed. And why do you think it will work? … that’s still better than just giving up
I could do a series of “what bobbyp” said here, including his 4:04 on FDR’s court-packing, and his 4:30. The “Not just make you feel righteous” would be insulting coming from almost anyone but wj; since I know wj to be as unsnarky and untroll-ey as they come, I can only assume he’s trying to be a friendly cheerleader for not giving up.
Part of my strategy for not giving up is to continue badgering wj to face reality and stop hoping for the revival of a sane Republican party.
I can only assume he’s trying to be a friendly cheerleader for not giving up.
Part of my strategy for not giving up is to continue badgering wj to face reality and stop hoping for the revival of a sane Republican party.
“…not giving up” is exactly what I’m trying to say. If you only need 1 vote, and you have 3 Senators who are 80% likely to oppose you, between the 3 of them you’re above a 50% chance of success. Another who is 9 to 1 likely to oppose you actually improves your odds further. Ain’t probability and statistics fun?!?
In a similar vein, I’m still hoping my party will return to sanity. It looks increasingly unlikely. But until another alternative appears, it still looks worth pursuing. And, after all, trying doesn’t prevent me from voting for a Democrat facing a nutcase Republican — and I do.
I can only assume he’s trying to be a friendly cheerleader for not giving up.
Part of my strategy for not giving up is to continue badgering wj to face reality and stop hoping for the revival of a sane Republican party.
“…not giving up” is exactly what I’m trying to say. If you only need 1 vote, and you have 3 Senators who are 80% likely to oppose you, between the 3 of them you’re above a 50% chance of success. Another who is 9 to 1 likely to oppose you actually improves your odds further. Ain’t probability and statistics fun?!?
In a similar vein, I’m still hoping my party will return to sanity. It looks increasingly unlikely. But until another alternative appears, it still looks worth pursuing. And, after all, trying doesn’t prevent me from voting for a Democrat facing a nutcase Republican — and I do.
Just because it might brighten someone’s day, consider this expression of concern from someone that I, personally, would classify as a
RWNJ:
“President Trump could make a big mistake and nominate another David Souter. . . . As soon as he crossed the Washington beltway after departing New Hampshire, he became a reliably liberal member of the court.”
Further
“Even worse, the president could nominate someone who midway into their nomination suffers from a surprise revelation that could be disqualifying.”
Things are rough all over. 😉
Just because it might brighten someone’s day, consider this expression of concern from someone that I, personally, would classify as a
RWNJ:
“President Trump could make a big mistake and nominate another David Souter. . . . As soon as he crossed the Washington beltway after departing New Hampshire, he became a reliably liberal member of the court.”
Further
“Even worse, the president could nominate someone who midway into their nomination suffers from a surprise revelation that could be disqualifying.”
Things are rough all over. 😉
President Trump could make a big mistake and nominate another David Souter.
Did you read the Federalist Society candidate curriculum vitae links posted by russell above?
These are people who want us to go back to the legal framework we had in 1896, including Plessy.
President Trump could make a big mistake and nominate another David Souter.
Did you read the Federalist Society candidate curriculum vitae links posted by russell above?
These are people who want us to go back to the legal framework we had in 1896, including Plessy.
My guess is that, in the end, the Federalist Society gets their guy who will overturn Roe. Then the far right discovers that, with no judicial cover on the subject, we pick up where we left off in 1973: with state legislatures across the country legalizing abortion.
Including, faster than you might expect, legislatures in deeply red states. If only because legislators who won’t find that lots of the women among what they thought was their base insist. Or else.
Is it bad for women needing an abortion? Yes, probably for a decade in some places. And it’s pretty terrible for all those committed reactionaries, who discover that they’ve trashed their political position — even worse than shutting out non-whites has.
The price is too high. But sometimes a silver lining is all you’ve got.
My guess is that, in the end, the Federalist Society gets their guy who will overturn Roe. Then the far right discovers that, with no judicial cover on the subject, we pick up where we left off in 1973: with state legislatures across the country legalizing abortion.
Including, faster than you might expect, legislatures in deeply red states. If only because legislators who won’t find that lots of the women among what they thought was their base insist. Or else.
Is it bad for women needing an abortion? Yes, probably for a decade in some places. And it’s pretty terrible for all those committed reactionaries, who discover that they’ve trashed their political position — even worse than shutting out non-whites has.
The price is too high. But sometimes a silver lining is all you’ve got.
No, not expected. It’s what Democrats would be smart to do. You catch more flies with honey. If that doesn’t work, there will be plenty of time to drive her out when she’s up next.
I don’t know Collins that well, but I would point out that this sort of advice in general is part of why we’re in this mess.
“Civility” has been on some lips of late, but I’d say it’s pretty obvious that what we actually suffer from is a surfeit, not a deficit.
The thing is, humans are social creatures. We go along with the crowd. If everyone seems to be saying that something is so, we generally default to going along with that. We have to, most of the time. Even the ‘mavericks’ and ‘outside the box thinkers’ are lot less mavericky than they’d probably like to believe.
This is, at root, why all those ‘humans failing the constitution’ things I mentioned earlier happen. Greed and thirst for power have their roles to play, sure. But a lot of it just comes down to intellectual inertia.
For example, I reckon that even most of us right here — and I’d take you lot as a good deal more thoughtful and introspective than some — still probably have a gut reaction that the electors switching their votes to Clinton, or writing in Mitt Romney or something, would have been, if not beyond the pale, than at least really, really weird. It’s fine to talk about, but it would never have actually happened. That’s just not how things work.
And yet, why not? Presidential electors making an independent choice in accord with their individual judgment and conscience is literally what they are there for. That intention is a good deal more supported in originalism, for what that’s worth, than the idea that the Supreme Court has 9 judges, or even that they should be able to review and overturn a health care law.
This is why there’s important power in just bringing this stuff out in the open and talking about it.
Power in saying what you actually mean, and what you are actually thinking, as loudly as possible. It comes from the fact that lots of other people might also be thinking it, but thinking that they were alone,l so the idea must be silly. Or they might not have thought of it, but will start thinking about it when they hear you say it.
But it also takes a long time to overcome inertia and start building momentum the other way. You can’t just wait until the last minute, and then when your clever butter-ups and manipulations don’t work out the way you hoped, switch strategies.
If Collins has a pattern of this kind of crap, it needs to be called out yesterday. If she doesn’t like it, she has a very easy way to stand up and prove you wrong.
The alternative is to let the message that she’s an independent maverick remain firmly fixed in voters heads. Or, in fact, reinforce it.
Nor can you just wait for later to start countering. For one thing, there’s always another key vote. And if you’re never calling out that behavior at the points when her decisions actually matter — and consequently are getting press coverage — how are you ever going to get anybody to hear what you’re saying at all?
No, not expected. It’s what Democrats would be smart to do. You catch more flies with honey. If that doesn’t work, there will be plenty of time to drive her out when she’s up next.
I don’t know Collins that well, but I would point out that this sort of advice in general is part of why we’re in this mess.
“Civility” has been on some lips of late, but I’d say it’s pretty obvious that what we actually suffer from is a surfeit, not a deficit.
The thing is, humans are social creatures. We go along with the crowd. If everyone seems to be saying that something is so, we generally default to going along with that. We have to, most of the time. Even the ‘mavericks’ and ‘outside the box thinkers’ are lot less mavericky than they’d probably like to believe.
This is, at root, why all those ‘humans failing the constitution’ things I mentioned earlier happen. Greed and thirst for power have their roles to play, sure. But a lot of it just comes down to intellectual inertia.
For example, I reckon that even most of us right here — and I’d take you lot as a good deal more thoughtful and introspective than some — still probably have a gut reaction that the electors switching their votes to Clinton, or writing in Mitt Romney or something, would have been, if not beyond the pale, than at least really, really weird. It’s fine to talk about, but it would never have actually happened. That’s just not how things work.
And yet, why not? Presidential electors making an independent choice in accord with their individual judgment and conscience is literally what they are there for. That intention is a good deal more supported in originalism, for what that’s worth, than the idea that the Supreme Court has 9 judges, or even that they should be able to review and overturn a health care law.
This is why there’s important power in just bringing this stuff out in the open and talking about it.
Power in saying what you actually mean, and what you are actually thinking, as loudly as possible. It comes from the fact that lots of other people might also be thinking it, but thinking that they were alone,l so the idea must be silly. Or they might not have thought of it, but will start thinking about it when they hear you say it.
But it also takes a long time to overcome inertia and start building momentum the other way. You can’t just wait until the last minute, and then when your clever butter-ups and manipulations don’t work out the way you hoped, switch strategies.
If Collins has a pattern of this kind of crap, it needs to be called out yesterday. If she doesn’t like it, she has a very easy way to stand up and prove you wrong.
The alternative is to let the message that she’s an independent maverick remain firmly fixed in voters heads. Or, in fact, reinforce it.
Nor can you just wait for later to start countering. For one thing, there’s always another key vote. And if you’re never calling out that behavior at the points when her decisions actually matter — and consequently are getting press coverage — how are you ever going to get anybody to hear what you’re saying at all?
“Win elections. You can’t pack the court until you win elections. A lot of them.
If packing the court still looks like a plan after you win a lot of elections, re-visit.”
I think this is right. If they really are obstructing practically everything after you have demonstrated that you maintain a large electoral lead, then you can talk about doing more than just going around them.
I think a lot of liberals are so used to using the Court to get around Congress, that they forget that the much more democratic technique is using Congress to get around the Court. And in a huge number of cases, a good Congressional majority can get around all sorts of rulings. For example Congress could easily change the Arbitration Act to restore it to the idea that it isn’t meant for consumers or employees. It could change the Voter’s rights act.
“Win elections. You can’t pack the court until you win elections. A lot of them.
If packing the court still looks like a plan after you win a lot of elections, re-visit.”
I think this is right. If they really are obstructing practically everything after you have demonstrated that you maintain a large electoral lead, then you can talk about doing more than just going around them.
I think a lot of liberals are so used to using the Court to get around Congress, that they forget that the much more democratic technique is using Congress to get around the Court. And in a huge number of cases, a good Congressional majority can get around all sorts of rulings. For example Congress could easily change the Arbitration Act to restore it to the idea that it isn’t meant for consumers or employees. It could change the Voter’s rights act.
Presidential electors making an independent choice in accord with their individual judgment and conscience is literally what they are there for.
Actually, there’s some question about that. Indeed, a number of states have laws requiring Presidential Electors to vote for the candidates to whom they were pledged.
And there is something to be said for having them do so, absent exceptional events after election day. Otherwise what were all those voters voting on? It’s not like anybody voting even knows their names, let alone anything about them. So you can’t really argue that they are being selected to exercise their judgement. Nobody knows whether they even have any.
Presidential electors making an independent choice in accord with their individual judgment and conscience is literally what they are there for.
Actually, there’s some question about that. Indeed, a number of states have laws requiring Presidential Electors to vote for the candidates to whom they were pledged.
And there is something to be said for having them do so, absent exceptional events after election day. Otherwise what were all those voters voting on? It’s not like anybody voting even knows their names, let alone anything about them. So you can’t really argue that they are being selected to exercise their judgement. Nobody knows whether they even have any.
If you only need 1 vote, and you have 3 Senators who are 80% likely to oppose you, between the 3 of them you’re above a 50% chance of success.
That is to assume that the probability for each senator is independent of the others, which in this case seems highly unlikely.
If you only need 1 vote, and you have 3 Senators who are 80% likely to oppose you, between the 3 of them you’re above a 50% chance of success.
That is to assume that the probability for each senator is independent of the others, which in this case seems highly unlikely.
I think a lot of liberals are so used to using the Court to get around Congress, that they forget that the much more democratic technique is using Congress to get around the Court.
Ever since the Warren Court, this has been a common conservative trope. Liberals have passed a great deal of federal legislation…maybe you are too young to remember Lyndon Johnson or the Congresses of the 1970’s. Surely you are aware that the ACA was enacted by the Congress and not libruls running to the courts.
In fact, a lot of the more controversial hot button judicial decisions are taken up as a dispute originating at the state level-interracial marriage, gay rights, etc., and are issues that Congress refuses to or is unable to take up.
When given the opportunity, conservatives do the very same thing…cf the relentless conservative judicial attack on affirmative action and yes, the ACA.
See also this.
PS: It could change the Voter’s rights act. I’m curious. Tell me how this could be done in light of Shelby. The Court basically took a clear and concisely written Congressional mandate in the Constitution and declared it no longer operative.
So answer me this… why didn’t conservatives just pass Congressional Legislation revoking that section of the Voting Right Act? Why the reliance on “judicial activism”? I would assert that to ask such a question is to answer it.
I think a lot of liberals are so used to using the Court to get around Congress, that they forget that the much more democratic technique is using Congress to get around the Court.
Ever since the Warren Court, this has been a common conservative trope. Liberals have passed a great deal of federal legislation…maybe you are too young to remember Lyndon Johnson or the Congresses of the 1970’s. Surely you are aware that the ACA was enacted by the Congress and not libruls running to the courts.
In fact, a lot of the more controversial hot button judicial decisions are taken up as a dispute originating at the state level-interracial marriage, gay rights, etc., and are issues that Congress refuses to or is unable to take up.
When given the opportunity, conservatives do the very same thing…cf the relentless conservative judicial attack on affirmative action and yes, the ACA.
See also this.
PS: It could change the Voter’s rights act. I’m curious. Tell me how this could be done in light of Shelby. The Court basically took a clear and concisely written Congressional mandate in the Constitution and declared it no longer operative.
So answer me this… why didn’t conservatives just pass Congressional Legislation revoking that section of the Voting Right Act? Why the reliance on “judicial activism”? I would assert that to ask such a question is to answer it.
I think a lot of liberals are so used to using the Court to get around Congress, that they forget that the much more democratic technique is using Congress to get around the Court.
…and Roosevelt’s court packing plan was essentially just that. But the Congress turned him down.
I think a lot of liberals are so used to using the Court to get around Congress, that they forget that the much more democratic technique is using Congress to get around the Court.
…and Roosevelt’s court packing plan was essentially just that. But the Congress turned him down.
Why the reliance on “judicial activism”?
Because if you can get something declared unconstitutional, it’s a lot harder (and takes longer) to get that reversed than a mere act of Congress.
It can take a decade or two of winning elections to reshape the Supreme Court — how long has it taken conservatives to get a Court which might reverse Roe? And amending the Constitution seems to be a non-starter.
Why the reliance on “judicial activism”?
Because if you can get something declared unconstitutional, it’s a lot harder (and takes longer) to get that reversed than a mere act of Congress.
It can take a decade or two of winning elections to reshape the Supreme Court — how long has it taken conservatives to get a Court which might reverse Roe? And amending the Constitution seems to be a non-starter.
It seems to me that reversing Roe would be wholly against Trump’s interests, and, except in so far as they genuinely care about the issue, against the interests of the Republican Party generally. Without Roe, Trump couldn’t have been elected.
Therefore, reversing Roe would be wholly in the interests of the Democratic Party, and hence of the American people generally. Except, and it’s a big except, for the human suffering caused because of it.
I think Trump is capable of working this out for himself, and if not he’ll have advisers to point it out to him. His aim will be to appoint a Justice who will chip at Roe rather than reverse it.
On the constitutional issue itself, it’s pretty hard to see in the Due Process clause the bit where is says that there’s a right to abortion up to the point of fetal viability.
I look at Ireland, which has recently voted in a referendum to end a constitutional ban on abortions. For now they remain illegal, but each year a few thousand Irishwomen travel to the UK for the procedure.
I suggest it’s time for the Democratic Party to offer a deal. It will support the appointment of a Justice who will vote to reverse Roe, so long as he promises to oppose any restrictions on access to contraception or interstate travel for the purpose of procuring an abortion (not that such a promise means much, but it makes the point).
If Roe is reversed, Republican states will start banning abortions. The Democratic Party should have a fund in place to offer advice and travel costs to women in those states. (The amounts involved would be significant but not infeasible, compared for example with election spending.)
These bans will be worth a few percent of the vote to the Democratic Party, which will soon control both the Senate and the House. Republican candidates will find it advantageous to develop more nuanced positions on the issue, and many states will soften their laws – if Ireland can legalise abortion, so can Republican states.
The Democratic Party’s overall strategy should be to position itself as the party of Democracy. Let the people decide.
It seems to me that reversing Roe would be wholly against Trump’s interests, and, except in so far as they genuinely care about the issue, against the interests of the Republican Party generally. Without Roe, Trump couldn’t have been elected.
Therefore, reversing Roe would be wholly in the interests of the Democratic Party, and hence of the American people generally. Except, and it’s a big except, for the human suffering caused because of it.
I think Trump is capable of working this out for himself, and if not he’ll have advisers to point it out to him. His aim will be to appoint a Justice who will chip at Roe rather than reverse it.
On the constitutional issue itself, it’s pretty hard to see in the Due Process clause the bit where is says that there’s a right to abortion up to the point of fetal viability.
I look at Ireland, which has recently voted in a referendum to end a constitutional ban on abortions. For now they remain illegal, but each year a few thousand Irishwomen travel to the UK for the procedure.
I suggest it’s time for the Democratic Party to offer a deal. It will support the appointment of a Justice who will vote to reverse Roe, so long as he promises to oppose any restrictions on access to contraception or interstate travel for the purpose of procuring an abortion (not that such a promise means much, but it makes the point).
If Roe is reversed, Republican states will start banning abortions. The Democratic Party should have a fund in place to offer advice and travel costs to women in those states. (The amounts involved would be significant but not infeasible, compared for example with election spending.)
These bans will be worth a few percent of the vote to the Democratic Party, which will soon control both the Senate and the House. Republican candidates will find it advantageous to develop more nuanced positions on the issue, and many states will soften their laws – if Ireland can legalise abortion, so can Republican states.
The Democratic Party’s overall strategy should be to position itself as the party of Democracy. Let the people decide.
It could change the Voter’s rights act. I’m curious. Tell me how this could be done in light of Shelby.
On the face of it, that’s pretty clear. Rewrite section 4b incorporating current abuse statistics, and incorporate a process to update these every electoral cycle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder
The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4(b), no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula…
Roberts wrote that the Act was immensely successful “at redressing racial discrimination and integrating the voting process” and noted that the U.S. has made great progress thanks to the Act.[21] But he added: “If Congress had started from scratch in 2006, it plainly could not have enacted the present coverage formula.”[21] According to the Court, “Regardless of how to look at the record no one can fairly say that it shows anything approaching the ‘pervasive,’ ‘flagrant,’ ‘widespread,’ and ‘rampant’ discrimination that faced Congress in 1965, and that clearly distinguished the covered jurisdictions from the rest of the nation.”…
The Court did not subject Section 4(b) to the “congruence and proportionality” standard of review or address whether that standard is the appropriate measure to use when determining the constitutionality of legislation passed pursuant to Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment.[28] The Court also noted the federalism concerns raised by the Section 5 preclearance requirement, but it did not reach the issue of whether Section 5 remains constitutional. However, because the Section 5 preclearance requirement applies only to jurisdictions covered by the Section 4(b) coverage formula, the decision rendered Section 5 inoperable unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula.
Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion expressing his view that Section 5 is also unconstitutional for the same reasons the Court held Section 4(b) unconstitutional…
However, such an effort to re-enact a ‘new coverage formula’ would likely be as time consuming and difficult as passing a whole new bill, and as we saw with Obamacare, there are only so many things an administration can get done.
And of course with one (or two…) more Trump picks, the court would slide towards the Thomas view of things.
It could change the Voter’s rights act. I’m curious. Tell me how this could be done in light of Shelby.
On the face of it, that’s pretty clear. Rewrite section 4b incorporating current abuse statistics, and incorporate a process to update these every electoral cycle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder
The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4(b), no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula…
Roberts wrote that the Act was immensely successful “at redressing racial discrimination and integrating the voting process” and noted that the U.S. has made great progress thanks to the Act.[21] But he added: “If Congress had started from scratch in 2006, it plainly could not have enacted the present coverage formula.”[21] According to the Court, “Regardless of how to look at the record no one can fairly say that it shows anything approaching the ‘pervasive,’ ‘flagrant,’ ‘widespread,’ and ‘rampant’ discrimination that faced Congress in 1965, and that clearly distinguished the covered jurisdictions from the rest of the nation.”…
The Court did not subject Section 4(b) to the “congruence and proportionality” standard of review or address whether that standard is the appropriate measure to use when determining the constitutionality of legislation passed pursuant to Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment.[28] The Court also noted the federalism concerns raised by the Section 5 preclearance requirement, but it did not reach the issue of whether Section 5 remains constitutional. However, because the Section 5 preclearance requirement applies only to jurisdictions covered by the Section 4(b) coverage formula, the decision rendered Section 5 inoperable unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula.
Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion expressing his view that Section 5 is also unconstitutional for the same reasons the Court held Section 4(b) unconstitutional…
However, such an effort to re-enact a ‘new coverage formula’ would likely be as time consuming and difficult as passing a whole new bill, and as we saw with Obamacare, there are only so many things an administration can get done.
And of course with one (or two…) more Trump picks, the court would slide towards the Thomas view of things.
Win elections. You can’t pack the court until you win elections. A lot of them…
You can’t redistrict, either.
And that I believe is a ten year cycle ?
Win elections. You can’t pack the court until you win elections. A lot of them…
You can’t redistrict, either.
And that I believe is a ten year cycle ?
However, such an effort to re-enact a ‘new coverage formula’ would likely be as time consuming and difficult as passing a whole new bill, and as we saw with Obamacare, there are only so many things an administration can get done.
Congress’s standard solution to that problem for the last 100 years is to toss creating the actual formulas over to the executive branch in the form of independent agencies. This would presumably be an add-on to the FEC, with more staff and money.
However, such an effort to re-enact a ‘new coverage formula’ would likely be as time consuming and difficult as passing a whole new bill, and as we saw with Obamacare, there are only so many things an administration can get done.
Congress’s standard solution to that problem for the last 100 years is to toss creating the actual formulas over to the executive branch in the form of independent agencies. This would presumably be an add-on to the FEC, with more staff and money.
Win elections. You can’t pack the court until you win elections. A lot of them…
You can’t redistrict, either.
I live in the American West, where almost every state has some sort of initiative process built into its constitution. Arizona and California use independent commissions put in place by initiative. Washington’s legislature put some sort of commission in place to avoid an initiative. Colorado does everything except US House districts by commission, and adding the House districts is on the ballot this year. Utah has an independent commission initiative on its ballot this year, which most recently polled 63-30 in favor. We only have to win one election per state out here to do away with the gerrymander problem.
As a region, more than half of ballots cast are now cast by mail. Colorado, Oregon, and Washington send ballots to every registered voter (Colorado also has vote centers for in-person voting and election day registration). From memory, Arizona’s permanent no-excuse absentee ballot list accounts for >70% of votes cast in that state, California’s for >60%, and Montana’s for about 50%. No voter id hassles when you vote at your kitchen table.
This particular pair of reforms are popular in both red states and blue ones.
Win elections. You can’t pack the court until you win elections. A lot of them…
You can’t redistrict, either.
I live in the American West, where almost every state has some sort of initiative process built into its constitution. Arizona and California use independent commissions put in place by initiative. Washington’s legislature put some sort of commission in place to avoid an initiative. Colorado does everything except US House districts by commission, and adding the House districts is on the ballot this year. Utah has an independent commission initiative on its ballot this year, which most recently polled 63-30 in favor. We only have to win one election per state out here to do away with the gerrymander problem.
As a region, more than half of ballots cast are now cast by mail. Colorado, Oregon, and Washington send ballots to every registered voter (Colorado also has vote centers for in-person voting and election day registration). From memory, Arizona’s permanent no-excuse absentee ballot list accounts for >70% of votes cast in that state, California’s for >60%, and Montana’s for about 50%. No voter id hassles when you vote at your kitchen table.
This particular pair of reforms are popular in both red states and blue ones.
Speaking of voting, there’s been a meeting going on with Republican lawmakers in Russia. I wonder what arrangements they’re making to ensure that their states forever remain red.
Also, I wonder who Marcy Wheeler is talking about here.
Speaking of voting, there’s been a meeting going on with Republican lawmakers in Russia. I wonder what arrangements they’re making to ensure that their states forever remain red.
Also, I wonder who Marcy Wheeler is talking about here.
the conservative’s dilemna regarding Roe is:
(a) they’ve been promising the end of Roe since Roe was passed, and now they’re in a position to deliver
(b) if Roe is overturned, economic and political conservatives lose the connection to social and religious conservatives
the conservative’s dilemna regarding Roe is:
(a) they’ve been promising the end of Roe since Roe was passed, and now they’re in a position to deliver
(b) if Roe is overturned, economic and political conservatives lose the connection to social and religious conservatives
(b) if Roe is overturned, economic and political conservatives lose the connection to social and religious conservatives.
Also, both groups discover that their female members are nowhere near as enthusiastic on the subject as they have been assuming. In short, it becomes an electoral disaster for them in several ways.
Also, what Pro Bono said (3:24 AM)
(b) if Roe is overturned, economic and political conservatives lose the connection to social and religious conservatives.
Also, both groups discover that their female members are nowhere near as enthusiastic on the subject as they have been assuming. In short, it becomes an electoral disaster for them in several ways.
Also, what Pro Bono said (3:24 AM)
Also, I wonder who Marcy Wheeler is talking about here.
The link is worth reading.
I consider Wheeler to be trustworthy. She definitely has a stance, but to my eye she is also scrupulous. She does her homework.
Perhaps something that deserves a thread of its own, but I’ll put it out for discussion here:
What happens if:
(a) It’s demonstrated that people in Trump’s campaign, or his family, or Trump himself, solicited assistance in the 2016 campaign from the Russian government or Russian nationals associated with the Russian government and/or Putin himself.
(b) It’s demonstrated that some kind of deals were cut relative to Syria, or the Ukraine, or NATO, or any other foreign policy issue.
(c) Nobody in a position to do anything about it – censure, impeachment, criminal charges – does anything about it.
Flynn, Cohen, Manafort, Papadopoulos, are all going to pay some kind of price. But not necessarily for co-operation with foreign nationals to interfere with the election.
So, I’m leaving them out. They are, regarding the campaign per se, more or less collateral damage.
What if the primary purpose of the investigation – not collusion, that namby-pamby word, but soliciting and receiving illegal assistance in the form of interference with the campaign – is demonstrated?
And nobody does a f’ing thing about it?
Not an idle question. Personally, I don’t see a (R) House – at least this (R) House – impeaching the POTUS, nor do I see this (R) Senate voting in favor of it.
What happens then?
Also, I wonder who Marcy Wheeler is talking about here.
The link is worth reading.
I consider Wheeler to be trustworthy. She definitely has a stance, but to my eye she is also scrupulous. She does her homework.
Perhaps something that deserves a thread of its own, but I’ll put it out for discussion here:
What happens if:
(a) It’s demonstrated that people in Trump’s campaign, or his family, or Trump himself, solicited assistance in the 2016 campaign from the Russian government or Russian nationals associated with the Russian government and/or Putin himself.
(b) It’s demonstrated that some kind of deals were cut relative to Syria, or the Ukraine, or NATO, or any other foreign policy issue.
(c) Nobody in a position to do anything about it – censure, impeachment, criminal charges – does anything about it.
Flynn, Cohen, Manafort, Papadopoulos, are all going to pay some kind of price. But not necessarily for co-operation with foreign nationals to interfere with the election.
So, I’m leaving them out. They are, regarding the campaign per se, more or less collateral damage.
What if the primary purpose of the investigation – not collusion, that namby-pamby word, but soliciting and receiving illegal assistance in the form of interference with the campaign – is demonstrated?
And nobody does a f’ing thing about it?
Not an idle question. Personally, I don’t see a (R) House – at least this (R) House – impeaching the POTUS, nor do I see this (R) Senate voting in favor of it.
What happens then?
What happens then?
“The Left” gets super angry, which delights Trump supporters on “The Right.” Where’s cleek?
What happens then?
“The Left” gets super angry, which delights Trump supporters on “The Right.” Where’s cleek?
wj: Also, both groups discover that their female members are nowhere near as enthusiastic on the subject as they have been assuming
I keep seeing this assertion, with no evidence. Got a link to any poll results?
wj: Also, both groups discover that their female members are nowhere near as enthusiastic on the subject as they have been assuming
I keep seeing this assertion, with no evidence. Got a link to any poll results?
Once again I predict that the day Mueller issues his report, Putin will initiate some pre-arranged international crisis for the benefit of his American stooge. You heard it here first.
–TP
Once again I predict that the day Mueller issues his report, Putin will initiate some pre-arranged international crisis for the benefit of his American stooge. You heard it here first.
–TP
What if the primary purpose of the investigation – not collusion, that namby-pamby word, but soliciting and receiving illegal assistance in the form of interference with the campaign – is demonstrated?
And nobody does a f’ing thing about it?
I think this is exactly what is currently unfolding, unfortunately. Much of the Republican party is complicit, IMO, as well as various other people, who have probably been on the Putin payroll. I honestly think that election help is being sought right now by those red state lawmakers visiting Russia. They know that the fix is in for them, which is why they are unabashedly performing their part of the bargain.
They’re all traitors, and they’ve sold the country. And it’s unlikely that we’ll get it back since the states with Republican governors are unlikely to protect the vote.
Yes, I’ll still work on GOTV and electing Democrats wherever I can. And I continue to hope for a miracle. But my guess is the Supreme Court appointees will have much less to do with Roe, and much more to do with protecting Trump from any criminal or civil liability.
What if the primary purpose of the investigation – not collusion, that namby-pamby word, but soliciting and receiving illegal assistance in the form of interference with the campaign – is demonstrated?
And nobody does a f’ing thing about it?
I think this is exactly what is currently unfolding, unfortunately. Much of the Republican party is complicit, IMO, as well as various other people, who have probably been on the Putin payroll. I honestly think that election help is being sought right now by those red state lawmakers visiting Russia. They know that the fix is in for them, which is why they are unabashedly performing their part of the bargain.
They’re all traitors, and they’ve sold the country. And it’s unlikely that we’ll get it back since the states with Republican governors are unlikely to protect the vote.
Yes, I’ll still work on GOTV and electing Democrats wherever I can. And I continue to hope for a miracle. But my guess is the Supreme Court appointees will have much less to do with Roe, and much more to do with protecting Trump from any criminal or civil liability.
What happens then?
Republicans lose the Presidency in 2020. (Whether they nominate Trump for a second term or not.) Every Republican candidate for Congress is forced to take a position on the subject. A lot try to avoid, but mostly don’t succeed — and lose if they don’t denounce the Trump campaign for doing so.
There will be the entirely predictable cries of “fake news” and resorts to “alternate facts.” And the dedicated Trumpistas will believe them. But a substantial majority of the country will be recoiling in horror. (This assumes, which every evidence so far suggests will happen, that Mueller does a solid job of proving his case.)
What happens then?
Republicans lose the Presidency in 2020. (Whether they nominate Trump for a second term or not.) Every Republican candidate for Congress is forced to take a position on the subject. A lot try to avoid, but mostly don’t succeed — and lose if they don’t denounce the Trump campaign for doing so.
There will be the entirely predictable cries of “fake news” and resorts to “alternate facts.” And the dedicated Trumpistas will believe them. But a substantial majority of the country will be recoiling in horror. (This assumes, which every evidence so far suggests will happen, that Mueller does a solid job of proving his case.)
I keep seeing this assertion, with no evidence. Got a link to any poll results?
Sadly, no. Just gut feel.
I keep seeing this assertion, with no evidence. Got a link to any poll results?
Sadly, no. Just gut feel.
Where’s cleek?
Living it up on the west side (of Cleveland)!
You’re absolutely right: nothing will happen. And the serious Republicans will just shrug and say “the GOP is reflecting the will of the people who elected them. Nothing can be done. “ while the other 90%. Of the party churros out rationalizations and denials.
This was always going to be the case. They elected a crook. They live and support the crook. They do not care that he’s a crook. And they won’t care if more evidence of his crookedness comes out. It’s a cult.
Where’s cleek?
Living it up on the west side (of Cleveland)!
You’re absolutely right: nothing will happen. And the serious Republicans will just shrug and say “the GOP is reflecting the will of the people who elected them. Nothing can be done. “ while the other 90%. Of the party churros out rationalizations and denials.
This was always going to be the case. They elected a crook. They live and support the crook. They do not care that he’s a crook. And they won’t care if more evidence of his crookedness comes out. It’s a cult.
Crap. HTML on a iPhone is hard.
Crap. HTML on a iPhone is hard.
What happens if:
(a) It’s demonstrated that people in Trump’s campaign, or his family, or Trump himself, solicited assistance in the 2016 campaign from the Russian government or Russian nationals associated with the Russian government and/or Putin himself….
I’m beginning to think it more likely that the investigation will get shut down before that can happen.
What happens if:
(a) It’s demonstrated that people in Trump’s campaign, or his family, or Trump himself, solicited assistance in the 2016 campaign from the Russian government or Russian nationals associated with the Russian government and/or Putin himself….
I’m beginning to think it more likely that the investigation will get shut down before that can happen.
Any poll results…
Some.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/03/abortion-supreme-court-justice-691338
Any poll results…
Some.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/03/abortion-supreme-court-justice-691338
Churros out?
Well, Churns out
I hate typing on phones.
Churros out?
Well, Churns out
I hate typing on phones.
“wj: Also, both groups discover that their female members are nowhere near as enthusiastic on the subject as they have been assuming
I keep seeing this assertion, with no evidence. Got a link to any poll results?”
I agree. There are a couple of things about Roe v. Wade. First, a bunch of people don’t know what it is. They say they support it AND they say that they want restrictions that aren’t allowed under it. Second, the assumption that women and men feel differently about it is basically not true. There is a slight gender gap in abortion with men being slightly MORE pro-choice than women. Abortion is such a political bomb because the Supreme Court locked-in a set of policies that are *much* more pro-choice than the US population which has led the discussion to be dominated by the radical pro-choicers who want to maintain the ‘constitutional’ status quo, and pro-lifers who also couldn’t command anything like a majority on radical first trimester bans on abortion.
Polling here
See especially questions like “Thinking more generally, do you think abortion should generally be legal or generally illegal during each of the following stages of pregnancy.” You’ll see that only about 20% of the population agrees with the extreme pro-choice position of abortions being generally legal in the third trimester. You’ll see that only about 30% of the general population agrees with the extreme pro-life position of making it generally illegal in the first trimester. However 65-70% of the population thinks that it should be generally illegal in the second trimester–something which Roe does not allow. The policy space desired by a very large majority has been made ‘unconstitutional’. So I don’t think it is clear at all that opening up that policy space automatically creates a huge backlash.
Embracing the radical pro-life position as a constitutional standard would probably create a backlash just as embracing the radical pro-choice created a backlash. But there are lots of things that NARAL would call ‘destroying Roe’ that probably would not cause a backlash because it would allow legislation that enormous majorities agree with.
“wj: Also, both groups discover that their female members are nowhere near as enthusiastic on the subject as they have been assuming
I keep seeing this assertion, with no evidence. Got a link to any poll results?”
I agree. There are a couple of things about Roe v. Wade. First, a bunch of people don’t know what it is. They say they support it AND they say that they want restrictions that aren’t allowed under it. Second, the assumption that women and men feel differently about it is basically not true. There is a slight gender gap in abortion with men being slightly MORE pro-choice than women. Abortion is such a political bomb because the Supreme Court locked-in a set of policies that are *much* more pro-choice than the US population which has led the discussion to be dominated by the radical pro-choicers who want to maintain the ‘constitutional’ status quo, and pro-lifers who also couldn’t command anything like a majority on radical first trimester bans on abortion.
Polling here
See especially questions like “Thinking more generally, do you think abortion should generally be legal or generally illegal during each of the following stages of pregnancy.” You’ll see that only about 20% of the population agrees with the extreme pro-choice position of abortions being generally legal in the third trimester. You’ll see that only about 30% of the general population agrees with the extreme pro-life position of making it generally illegal in the first trimester. However 65-70% of the population thinks that it should be generally illegal in the second trimester–something which Roe does not allow. The policy space desired by a very large majority has been made ‘unconstitutional’. So I don’t think it is clear at all that opening up that policy space automatically creates a huge backlash.
Embracing the radical pro-life position as a constitutional standard would probably create a backlash just as embracing the radical pro-choice created a backlash. But there are lots of things that NARAL would call ‘destroying Roe’ that probably would not cause a backlash because it would allow legislation that enormous majorities agree with.
if Roe is overturned, economic and political conservatives lose the connection to social and religious conservatives
I would disagree somewhat. The one big thing ‘connecting’ these two groups is race. Roe came later.
Also, both groups discover that their female members are nowhere near as enthusiastic on the subject as they have been assuming.
From what I observe, the anti-choice movement is absolutely chock full of women…so no.
it becomes an electoral disaster for them in several ways.
Again, no. The battle would then move to the states and continue to rage. Deep blue or deep red states are not going to change their political orientation over this one issue. Whether this would be decisive in toss-up states is….um, indeterminate. I would argue demographics and the GOP’s marked proclivity to drive the economy into a ditch are more important.
if Roe is overturned, economic and political conservatives lose the connection to social and religious conservatives
I would disagree somewhat. The one big thing ‘connecting’ these two groups is race. Roe came later.
Also, both groups discover that their female members are nowhere near as enthusiastic on the subject as they have been assuming.
From what I observe, the anti-choice movement is absolutely chock full of women…so no.
it becomes an electoral disaster for them in several ways.
Again, no. The battle would then move to the states and continue to rage. Deep blue or deep red states are not going to change their political orientation over this one issue. Whether this would be decisive in toss-up states is….um, indeterminate. I would argue demographics and the GOP’s marked proclivity to drive the economy into a ditch are more important.
There are a couple of things about Roe v. Wade. First, a bunch of people don’t know what it is. They say they support it AND they say that they want restrictions that aren’t allowed under it.
Quite true. And contrawise. In fact, I was about to draft up a comment suggesting that we quit talking about Roe per se, and talk about abortion/choice.
Consider, that rabid conservative Justice Ginsberg has said
https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit
that
If someone who you thought was a conservative expressed that point of view, how adamant would you be that he should be rejected? Think about it.
Further from Justice Ginsberg, “My criticism of Roe is [also] that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change”. Which, for anyone here too young to remember, was already happening. See, for example, this from the Southern Baptist Convention in 1971:
Times have changed of course. But that’s where the philosophical discussion had got to pre Roe.
I have to say, I’m with her on both counts. I think abortion should be legal. (I incline to say, up to the point that the fetus can survive outside the womb without massive medical intervention.) But I think that the legal “reasoning” in Roe is garbage. And we would be better off today if the case had simply been declined as “not a Federal issue.”
So, let’s stop focusing on Roe v Wade and focus in what we actually care about.
There are a couple of things about Roe v. Wade. First, a bunch of people don’t know what it is. They say they support it AND they say that they want restrictions that aren’t allowed under it.
Quite true. And contrawise. In fact, I was about to draft up a comment suggesting that we quit talking about Roe per se, and talk about abortion/choice.
Consider, that rabid conservative Justice Ginsberg has said
https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit
that
If someone who you thought was a conservative expressed that point of view, how adamant would you be that he should be rejected? Think about it.
Further from Justice Ginsberg, “My criticism of Roe is [also] that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change”. Which, for anyone here too young to remember, was already happening. See, for example, this from the Southern Baptist Convention in 1971:
Times have changed of course. But that’s where the philosophical discussion had got to pre Roe.
I have to say, I’m with her on both counts. I think abortion should be legal. (I incline to say, up to the point that the fetus can survive outside the womb without massive medical intervention.) But I think that the legal “reasoning” in Roe is garbage. And we would be better off today if the case had simply been declined as “not a Federal issue.”
So, let’s stop focusing on Roe v Wade and focus in what we actually care about.
Sebastian,
Did Roe v Wade establish ONLY a woman’s right to abort a pregnancy? Or did the Court’s opinion ALSO protect other, more general rights for individuals’ bodily integrity?
“Abortion” is not explicitly mentioned in the original text of the Constitution. Neither is “contraception” or “sex change” or “organ donation” or “assisted suicide”. When the SCOTUS rules on cases in which individual US citizens challenge the power of their state government (or of the feds) to restrict any of those things, what constitutional principles are involved? And are they the same principles across the various cases?
–TP
Sebastian,
Did Roe v Wade establish ONLY a woman’s right to abort a pregnancy? Or did the Court’s opinion ALSO protect other, more general rights for individuals’ bodily integrity?
“Abortion” is not explicitly mentioned in the original text of the Constitution. Neither is “contraception” or “sex change” or “organ donation” or “assisted suicide”. When the SCOTUS rules on cases in which individual US citizens challenge the power of their state government (or of the feds) to restrict any of those things, what constitutional principles are involved? And are they the same principles across the various cases?
–TP
Seb H, I agree in general that a balanced legal solution would be better in theory.
But from a German perspective and looking at the situation in the US, I doubt that it would be possible to enforce it. We had for a long time a system of abortion being illegal but with specific exceptions. Our supreme court ruled a trimester based system as unconstitutional after parliament tried to introduce it. But the court had to revisit its decision because the law as it existed got applied very differently in different parts of Germany (FRG, the GDR had a trimester based system). In the South abortion was in essence illegal without exceptions while in the North it was in essence legal with few exceptions, and there was ‘abortion tourism’ to the Netherlands. The supreme court was finally angered enough about the Southern defiance that it finally agreed to a de facto trimester system (while in theory it is still illegal with exceptions but the state is banned from prosecution, if the woman takes a counselling interview* 24 hours before the abortion).
Since in the US it is clear that several state governments will under no circumstances play fair if given the slightest legal leeway, I fear the ‘no restrictions’ position (which I do not share personally) is the only viable option and the federal government should actually go into the abortion business itself in places where the local government ignores/defies the (federal) law (precedent: refusual to end segregation).
(fat chance of that, I know).
Btw, I agree that Roe is legally questionable. More or less correct conclusion but faulty reasoning. Unfortunately, I see no chance of it getting replaced by something with a firmer base. If Roe goes, it will be nixing not fixing.
*which has to be neutral, the woman cannot be denied a certificate, and locations to take the interview have to be provided everywhere, i.e. no ‘crisis pregnancy centers’ or need to travel hundreds of miles or similar shenanigans.
Seb H, I agree in general that a balanced legal solution would be better in theory.
But from a German perspective and looking at the situation in the US, I doubt that it would be possible to enforce it. We had for a long time a system of abortion being illegal but with specific exceptions. Our supreme court ruled a trimester based system as unconstitutional after parliament tried to introduce it. But the court had to revisit its decision because the law as it existed got applied very differently in different parts of Germany (FRG, the GDR had a trimester based system). In the South abortion was in essence illegal without exceptions while in the North it was in essence legal with few exceptions, and there was ‘abortion tourism’ to the Netherlands. The supreme court was finally angered enough about the Southern defiance that it finally agreed to a de facto trimester system (while in theory it is still illegal with exceptions but the state is banned from prosecution, if the woman takes a counselling interview* 24 hours before the abortion).
Since in the US it is clear that several state governments will under no circumstances play fair if given the slightest legal leeway, I fear the ‘no restrictions’ position (which I do not share personally) is the only viable option and the federal government should actually go into the abortion business itself in places where the local government ignores/defies the (federal) law (precedent: refusual to end segregation).
(fat chance of that, I know).
Btw, I agree that Roe is legally questionable. More or less correct conclusion but faulty reasoning. Unfortunately, I see no chance of it getting replaced by something with a firmer base. If Roe goes, it will be nixing not fixing.
*which has to be neutral, the woman cannot be denied a certificate, and locations to take the interview have to be provided everywhere, i.e. no ‘crisis pregnancy centers’ or need to travel hundreds of miles or similar shenanigans.
I’m almost amused but the ‘faulty reasoning’ consensus, given just how many landmark SC decisions seem to be based on contradictory principles, or twisting precedent into pretzels.
There something to be said for the ‘the law is what the judges say it is’ analysis…
I’m almost amused but the ‘faulty reasoning’ consensus, given just how many landmark SC decisions seem to be based on contradictory principles, or twisting precedent into pretzels.
There something to be said for the ‘the law is what the judges say it is’ analysis…
“Btw, I agree that Roe is legally questionable. More or less correct conclusion but faulty reasoning. Unfortunately, I see no chance of it getting replaced by something with a firmer base. If Roe goes, it will be nixing not fixing.”
This highlights exactly the problem with dealing with it as a Constitutional issue combined with setting the court mandated policy solution to a radically pro-choice point. In a legislative solution we would dial it down to something in tune with the 65-70% of people who think that it should be mostly outlawed at some point in the second trimester rather than the third. By setting it through the Supreme Court at a point where just under 2/3rds of the population disagrees, but can’t fix it, we’ve set up a horrible dynamic where everyone has to treat the Supreme Court as the most important thing around, rather than Congress. So finally, after working 40 years on it, they are close.
Meanwhile, even the huge percentage of Democrats who wouldn’t mind earlier restrictions, can’t do so legislatively, so what are they going to do? Vote for conservative judges? Probably not, so the issue remains frozen in 1973.
Which leads to one of my recurring themes on hyper-polarization. When one radical side has the support of just under 30% of the population, and the other radical side has the support of around 20% of the population, both sides are wrong when they invoke the slippery slope to the other side. If the law is where 65% of people agree with it, neither radical side is likely to get much traction. The problem is when one radical side cements their agenda through the courts because they are basically inviting the people in the middle to ally with the other radical side. In that case, the other radical side gets a lot of involvement if the Court ruling is ever reversed. But that wouldn’t happen if you could move things to the center slowly. That wouldn’t cause a slippery slope, because most people strongly disagree with both sets of radicals.
The problem is that we have set up a system where once the courts get involved you can’t move things to the center. It makes for starkly binary outcomes that most people just don’t want. And then people get very tribalistic about protecting ‘their’ judges.
“Btw, I agree that Roe is legally questionable. More or less correct conclusion but faulty reasoning. Unfortunately, I see no chance of it getting replaced by something with a firmer base. If Roe goes, it will be nixing not fixing.”
This highlights exactly the problem with dealing with it as a Constitutional issue combined with setting the court mandated policy solution to a radically pro-choice point. In a legislative solution we would dial it down to something in tune with the 65-70% of people who think that it should be mostly outlawed at some point in the second trimester rather than the third. By setting it through the Supreme Court at a point where just under 2/3rds of the population disagrees, but can’t fix it, we’ve set up a horrible dynamic where everyone has to treat the Supreme Court as the most important thing around, rather than Congress. So finally, after working 40 years on it, they are close.
Meanwhile, even the huge percentage of Democrats who wouldn’t mind earlier restrictions, can’t do so legislatively, so what are they going to do? Vote for conservative judges? Probably not, so the issue remains frozen in 1973.
Which leads to one of my recurring themes on hyper-polarization. When one radical side has the support of just under 30% of the population, and the other radical side has the support of around 20% of the population, both sides are wrong when they invoke the slippery slope to the other side. If the law is where 65% of people agree with it, neither radical side is likely to get much traction. The problem is when one radical side cements their agenda through the courts because they are basically inviting the people in the middle to ally with the other radical side. In that case, the other radical side gets a lot of involvement if the Court ruling is ever reversed. But that wouldn’t happen if you could move things to the center slowly. That wouldn’t cause a slippery slope, because most people strongly disagree with both sets of radicals.
The problem is that we have set up a system where once the courts get involved you can’t move things to the center. It makes for starkly binary outcomes that most people just don’t want. And then people get very tribalistic about protecting ‘their’ judges.
LOL Nigel….you have a point. And thus we have the “garbage” (to quote widely known legal scholar above) that is Roe and the high, highly correct, and deeply principled in the most originalist Constitutional sense that is Bush v. Gore.
LOL Nigel….you have a point. And thus we have the “garbage” (to quote widely known legal scholar above) that is Roe and the high, highly correct, and deeply principled in the most originalist Constitutional sense that is Bush v. Gore.
And even talking about it is a huge mess, because both sets of radicals claim that center agrees with them.
Radical pro-lifers think that abortion should be outlawed either completely or very early in the first trimester.
Radical pro-choicers think that abortion should be allowed completely at the mother’s discretion throughout the entire pregnancy, or only outlawed in the third trimester or later.
About 65% of people think it should be mostly outlawed at some point in the second trimester.
Those are the facts.
But when we discuss it, the pro-life radicals say things like “a huge majority of people are pro-life” because they think that abortions should be mostly disallowed much earlier than radical pro-choice advocates think.
Pro-choice radicals say things like “a huge majority of people are for abortion rights” because about 2/3rds of the public doesn’t want to restrict 1st trimester abortions.
But in neither case can these statements be translated into “a majority of people support our radical cause”. They don’t. And pretending that they do ends up obscuring why abortion has remained such a nasty pivot point in US politics.
And even talking about it is a huge mess, because both sets of radicals claim that center agrees with them.
Radical pro-lifers think that abortion should be outlawed either completely or very early in the first trimester.
Radical pro-choicers think that abortion should be allowed completely at the mother’s discretion throughout the entire pregnancy, or only outlawed in the third trimester or later.
About 65% of people think it should be mostly outlawed at some point in the second trimester.
Those are the facts.
But when we discuss it, the pro-life radicals say things like “a huge majority of people are pro-life” because they think that abortions should be mostly disallowed much earlier than radical pro-choice advocates think.
Pro-choice radicals say things like “a huge majority of people are for abortion rights” because about 2/3rds of the public doesn’t want to restrict 1st trimester abortions.
But in neither case can these statements be translated into “a majority of people support our radical cause”. They don’t. And pretending that they do ends up obscuring why abortion has remained such a nasty pivot point in US politics.
contra wj, ROE WAS DECIDED CORRECTLY.
Read it and weep. 🙂
contra wj, ROE WAS DECIDED CORRECTLY.
Read it and weep. 🙂
Why weep? Justice Ginsberg (and I) wasn’t arguing that there was no basis for overturning anti-abortion laws. Rather, that the reasoning was faulty. On that, I’d definitely be inclined to take Ginsberg over Lemieux. YMMV
Why weep? Justice Ginsberg (and I) wasn’t arguing that there was no basis for overturning anti-abortion laws. Rather, that the reasoning was faulty. On that, I’d definitely be inclined to take Ginsberg over Lemieux. YMMV
I agree that Roe was decided correctly. I have made that argument here before, and I’m not sure why we discuss this case time and time again, especially with people saying it is “garbage” without explaining why, and people complaining about its political implications (about whether it moved things along too fast or whatever) without discussing the merits of the rights that were discussed in the opinion.
And, yes, although I admire RBG, I disagree with her that the case was decided on the wrong grounds (although, sure, it could have been decided on equal protection too).
In any case it is a masterful opinion which discusses the history of the common law, religious tenets and medical opinion. It is an extremely compassionate and sensible approach to the issue, and it reflects a very mainstream view.
I agree that Roe was decided correctly. I have made that argument here before, and I’m not sure why we discuss this case time and time again, especially with people saying it is “garbage” without explaining why, and people complaining about its political implications (about whether it moved things along too fast or whatever) without discussing the merits of the rights that were discussed in the opinion.
And, yes, although I admire RBG, I disagree with her that the case was decided on the wrong grounds (although, sure, it could have been decided on equal protection too).
In any case it is a masterful opinion which discusses the history of the common law, religious tenets and medical opinion. It is an extremely compassionate and sensible approach to the issue, and it reflects a very mainstream view.
Also, as we’ve probably discussed before, if people aren’t willing to donate a kidney, or a chunk of their liver, or their bone marrow, and they claim to be “pro-life”, they can go stfu.
Also, as we’ve probably discussed before, if people aren’t willing to donate a kidney, or a chunk of their liver, or their bone marrow, and they claim to be “pro-life”, they can go stfu.
I don’t usually wade into this, but I found Hartmut’s comment quite astute. The difference I see between the two groups is that the ‘pro-choice radicals’ occupy a philosophical position and it is difficult to find a woman who might choose to go thru an entire pregnancy just to terminate a few days before the due date. On the other hand, the other side is more than happy to take it beyond a philosophical question to a question of actual practices. This then easily overlaps with racist and classist motivations (the daughter in the Hamptons who ‘has an accident’ is going to be treated differently than a counterpart daughter of color) wj’s notion that things would work themselves out if Roe were repealed is probably true, but the human cost involved would be staggering.
I don’t usually wade into this, but I found Hartmut’s comment quite astute. The difference I see between the two groups is that the ‘pro-choice radicals’ occupy a philosophical position and it is difficult to find a woman who might choose to go thru an entire pregnancy just to terminate a few days before the due date. On the other hand, the other side is more than happy to take it beyond a philosophical question to a question of actual practices. This then easily overlaps with racist and classist motivations (the daughter in the Hamptons who ‘has an accident’ is going to be treated differently than a counterpart daughter of color) wj’s notion that things would work themselves out if Roe were repealed is probably true, but the human cost involved would be staggering.
The difference I see between the two groups is that the ‘pro-choice radicals’ occupy a philosophical position and it is difficult to find a woman who might choose to go thru an entire pregnancy just to terminate a few days before the due date.
What does the “pro-choice radicals'” position have to do with Roe? Roe holds that states can regulate or even ban abortion in the third trimester unless the life or health of the woman would be compromised by continuing the pregnancy.
Y’all, Roe is a mainstream view of abortion. It allows abortion on demand ONLY during the first trimester. Okay?
The difference I see between the two groups is that the ‘pro-choice radicals’ occupy a philosophical position and it is difficult to find a woman who might choose to go thru an entire pregnancy just to terminate a few days before the due date.
What does the “pro-choice radicals'” position have to do with Roe? Roe holds that states can regulate or even ban abortion in the third trimester unless the life or health of the woman would be compromised by continuing the pregnancy.
Y’all, Roe is a mainstream view of abortion. It allows abortion on demand ONLY during the first trimester. Okay?
It was in quotations because I wanted to emphasize it wasn’t my term, it was Sebastian’s. And my comment wasn’t addressing Roe, except to point out that I thought Hartmut’s example of Germany and why it had to be kicked up to the federal level was insightful.
It was in quotations because I wanted to emphasize it wasn’t my term, it was Sebastian’s. And my comment wasn’t addressing Roe, except to point out that I thought Hartmut’s example of Germany and why it had to be kicked up to the federal level was insightful.
Thanks, lj.
This isn’t directed at you, but instead at the comments in the thread generally. We’re talking about the Supreme Court possibly overturning Roe, right? Which means that when we bring up Roe, and what a “garbage” decision it might be, or why we disagree with it, or what’s wrong with it, it might be nice to actually read it. Or talk about the rights that it discusses.
Most people feel that they have a certain right to privacy in what goes on with their own body. For example, most people would object if the government forced them to donate bone marrow, even if it would save the life of another person. Roe limits that bodily autonomy for pregnant women in a way that gives a growing fetus some power to demand that a woman give up her choices. I’m okay with that, so maybe that makes me a pro-choice moderate. Roe is a great decision for people like me, a pro-choice moderate.
Thanks, lj.
This isn’t directed at you, but instead at the comments in the thread generally. We’re talking about the Supreme Court possibly overturning Roe, right? Which means that when we bring up Roe, and what a “garbage” decision it might be, or why we disagree with it, or what’s wrong with it, it might be nice to actually read it. Or talk about the rights that it discusses.
Most people feel that they have a certain right to privacy in what goes on with their own body. For example, most people would object if the government forced them to donate bone marrow, even if it would save the life of another person. Roe limits that bodily autonomy for pregnant women in a way that gives a growing fetus some power to demand that a woman give up her choices. I’m okay with that, so maybe that makes me a pro-choice moderate. Roe is a great decision for people like me, a pro-choice moderate.
as far as i can tell, folks are more than happy to embrace policy made via the courts when it favors their preferences.
roe addresses issues that are broader in scope than abortion per se.
the nature of republican governance is that what the majority want is not the only factor to be considered when making law and policy.
given that the scotus took up the issue at all, roe seems pretty close to solomonic. imvho.
if roe goes, women’s access to legal abortion will likely be limited relative to what it is now. good thing, bad thing, depends on factors far beyond what the law can sort out. if you demand that the law figure it out – in either direction – you’re gonna end up with an answer that will not satisfy everyone completely. hardly anyone, more like.
law is about drawing lines. that is its value, and its limitation.
that’s everything i got on roe.
as far as i can tell, folks are more than happy to embrace policy made via the courts when it favors their preferences.
roe addresses issues that are broader in scope than abortion per se.
the nature of republican governance is that what the majority want is not the only factor to be considered when making law and policy.
given that the scotus took up the issue at all, roe seems pretty close to solomonic. imvho.
if roe goes, women’s access to legal abortion will likely be limited relative to what it is now. good thing, bad thing, depends on factors far beyond what the law can sort out. if you demand that the law figure it out – in either direction – you’re gonna end up with an answer that will not satisfy everyone completely. hardly anyone, more like.
law is about drawing lines. that is its value, and its limitation.
that’s everything i got on roe.
Sometimes, my mind boggles. It seems there is some growing objection to Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh from the right. Apparently he has on unacceptably open mind on health care. Plus he’s too close to the Bushes.
Worse, he has written that Supreme Court precedent “strongly suggests that the Government has a compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception”. Oh, the horror! Why if they had contraception, they could have sex without the ban on abortion forcing them to have a child. Which was the whole motivation behind banning abortions for many.
Sometimes, my mind boggles. It seems there is some growing objection to Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh from the right. Apparently he has on unacceptably open mind on health care. Plus he’s too close to the Bushes.
Worse, he has written that Supreme Court precedent “strongly suggests that the Government has a compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception”. Oh, the horror! Why if they had contraception, they could have sex without the ban on abortion forcing them to have a child. Which was the whole motivation behind banning abortions for many.
Sapient, rather than Roe, what do you think about Planned Parenthood v Casey? Which I personally find far more persuasive.
Sapient, rather than Roe, what do you think about Planned Parenthood v Casey? Which I personally find far more persuasive.
“Y’all, Roe is a mainstream view of abortion. It allows abortion on demand ONLY during the first trimester. Okay?”
That isn’t correct. Roe allows abortion on demand all the way through the end of the sixth month. The court doesn’t allow abortion regulations to protect “potentiality of human life” until then. It strikes that line at least two months later than a vast majority of the population thinks is right.
The amount of people who think that the 7th month or later is the right place to draw that line represents only about 20% of the population.
“Y’all, Roe is a mainstream view of abortion. It allows abortion on demand ONLY during the first trimester. Okay?”
That isn’t correct. Roe allows abortion on demand all the way through the end of the sixth month. The court doesn’t allow abortion regulations to protect “potentiality of human life” until then. It strikes that line at least two months later than a vast majority of the population thinks is right.
The amount of people who think that the 7th month or later is the right place to draw that line represents only about 20% of the population.
Literacy is a privilege too, it seems. Any guesses what SCOTUS would have to say on the matter now or with a Kennedy replacement?
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/395231-michigan-judge-rules-kids-dont-have-a-fundamental-right-to
Caveat: The judge makes a distinction between right and fundamental right and states that education is important. It’s not one of those fundamentalists that are against the very idea. But as with many things these days in the US of A it looks right on the path to ‘you have the right to X but no right to access the legal system to get it’ (cf. voting rights or wage theft or access to abortion under local ‘pro-life’ governments).
Literacy is a privilege too, it seems. Any guesses what SCOTUS would have to say on the matter now or with a Kennedy replacement?
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/395231-michigan-judge-rules-kids-dont-have-a-fundamental-right-to
Caveat: The judge makes a distinction between right and fundamental right and states that education is important. It’s not one of those fundamentalists that are against the very idea. But as with many things these days in the US of A it looks right on the path to ‘you have the right to X but no right to access the legal system to get it’ (cf. voting rights or wage theft or access to abortion under local ‘pro-life’ governments).
It strikes that line at least two months later than a vast majority of the population thinks is right.
I assume that the vast majority of the population, then, won’t be having an abortion at that stage.
Sebastian, would you favor a law requiring people to donate kidneys or bone marrow in order to save the lives of unquestionably viable people? If not, why not? Aren’t you pro-life? Or is just women who should be forced to devote their bodies to save other [potential] people?
wj, if Casey’s amended standard would have made forced birthers leave women alone, it would have been fine. But it did nothing of the sort. It just gave people room to deny women access to medical care.
I would suggest that instead of obsessing about women’s failure to save fetal lives, people start doing their own work saving people by donating their body parts. There’s a growing need. Maybe some people here have already done so. If that’s the case, you deserve a lot of respect for your freely-made sacrifice. But I would still ask, would you force people to do it? Why not?
It strikes that line at least two months later than a vast majority of the population thinks is right.
I assume that the vast majority of the population, then, won’t be having an abortion at that stage.
Sebastian, would you favor a law requiring people to donate kidneys or bone marrow in order to save the lives of unquestionably viable people? If not, why not? Aren’t you pro-life? Or is just women who should be forced to devote their bodies to save other [potential] people?
wj, if Casey’s amended standard would have made forced birthers leave women alone, it would have been fine. But it did nothing of the sort. It just gave people room to deny women access to medical care.
I would suggest that instead of obsessing about women’s failure to save fetal lives, people start doing their own work saving people by donating their body parts. There’s a growing need. Maybe some people here have already done so. If that’s the case, you deserve a lot of respect for your freely-made sacrifice. But I would still ask, would you force people to do it? Why not?
Another very good argument for term limits…
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/power-causes-brain-damage/528711/
Another very good argument for term limits…
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/power-causes-brain-damage/528711/
Am in complete sympathy with you, sapient.
FWIW, Andrew Sullivan, back in the days when his blog was interesting, ran a long debate with readers and came to similar conclusions.
Am in complete sympathy with you, sapient.
FWIW, Andrew Sullivan, back in the days when his blog was interesting, ran a long debate with readers and came to similar conclusions.
In Germany there is a discussion about an opt-out model for organ donation (after death), i.e. if you do not specify that you want to keep the stuff even while dead, you would automatically consent to donation (whether relatives could object is part of the discussion). Iirc the courts have not weighed in (since it is not yet law and might never become).
In Germany there is a discussion about an opt-out model for organ donation (after death), i.e. if you do not specify that you want to keep the stuff even while dead, you would automatically consent to donation (whether relatives could object is part of the discussion). Iirc the courts have not weighed in (since it is not yet law and might never become).
I would suggest that instead of obsessing about women’s failure to save fetal lives, people start doing their own work saving people by donating their body parts.
I’d agree. And I’d add that anyone who claims to abhor abortions, but opposes making contraceptives universally available (and free), even to teenagers and without parental involvement, is a total hypocrite. And probably is caring about something other than the supposed life being lost. So they should STFU.
I would suggest that instead of obsessing about women’s failure to save fetal lives, people start doing their own work saving people by donating their body parts.
I’d agree. And I’d add that anyone who claims to abhor abortions, but opposes making contraceptives universally available (and free), even to teenagers and without parental involvement, is a total hypocrite. And probably is caring about something other than the supposed life being lost. So they should STFU.
About this “on demand” business: what fraction of the population equates “on demand” with “on a whim”?
You can get chemotherapy “on demand” in the sense that you don’t have to get permission from The State. (Your insurance company may be a different story.) That has not led to a rash of people getting chemo “on a whim” as far as I know. And I seriously doubt that 3rd-trimester abortions happen “on a whim”, either.
That cuts two ways, of course. If women seek late-term abortions not “on a whim” but for good reason, then:
1) The Right can argue it’s no great imposition when The State demands to know the reason before granting permission;
2) The Left can argue that going from “on demand” to “by State permission” is a needlessly authoritarian attempt to solve a non-problem.
Naturally, “for good reason” means different things to different people, and it’s hard to poll that question. It’s much easier to pretend that “on demand” means “on a whim”, and poll on that.
–TP
About this “on demand” business: what fraction of the population equates “on demand” with “on a whim”?
You can get chemotherapy “on demand” in the sense that you don’t have to get permission from The State. (Your insurance company may be a different story.) That has not led to a rash of people getting chemo “on a whim” as far as I know. And I seriously doubt that 3rd-trimester abortions happen “on a whim”, either.
That cuts two ways, of course. If women seek late-term abortions not “on a whim” but for good reason, then:
1) The Right can argue it’s no great imposition when The State demands to know the reason before granting permission;
2) The Left can argue that going from “on demand” to “by State permission” is a needlessly authoritarian attempt to solve a non-problem.
Naturally, “for good reason” means different things to different people, and it’s hard to poll that question. It’s much easier to pretend that “on demand” means “on a whim”, and poll on that.
–TP
I’ll play CharlesWT by providing this link:
https://reason.com/blog/2016/10/21/late-term-abortions-in-america-2016
I’ll play CharlesWT by providing this link:
https://reason.com/blog/2016/10/21/late-term-abortions-in-america-2016
I’m waiting for Trump to tweet that some women are so pro-abortion that they get pregnant deliberately, just so they can have an abortion. Which is ridiculous, but that’s never stopped him before.
I’m waiting for Trump to tweet that some women are so pro-abortion that they get pregnant deliberately, just so they can have an abortion. Which is ridiculous, but that’s never stopped him before.
wj, that claim has been made for ages by Kristian(TM) fundamentalists. Don’t forget that liberals are Satan worshippers. Unbaptized kids (in particular those dying unborn) go straight to hell, so liberal women pay their satanic membership fees by conceiving babies and aborting them. Of cause Satan would prefer that they strangle them personally after birth (or hand them to the midwives for that purpose*) but a) that would be personal inconvenience (something liberals hate) and b) in the time to produce a single life birth one can conceive and abort multiple unborn.
*cf. Malleus Maleficarum for details
wj, that claim has been made for ages by Kristian(TM) fundamentalists. Don’t forget that liberals are Satan worshippers. Unbaptized kids (in particular those dying unborn) go straight to hell, so liberal women pay their satanic membership fees by conceiving babies and aborting them. Of cause Satan would prefer that they strangle them personally after birth (or hand them to the midwives for that purpose*) but a) that would be personal inconvenience (something liberals hate) and b) in the time to produce a single life birth one can conceive and abort multiple unborn.
*cf. Malleus Maleficarum for details
Sigh. Every time I think I’ve invented a “Nobody could be this daft” idea, I discover that someone is and did. Serious, and recurring, failure of imagination on my part.
Sigh. Every time I think I’ve invented a “Nobody could be this daft” idea, I discover that someone is and did. Serious, and recurring, failure of imagination on my part.
I just discovered that there are billboards in Cleveland that say “abortion is systemic racism “
Rational people these are not
I just discovered that there are billboards in Cleveland that say “abortion is systemic racism “
Rational people these are not
Tony P, I’m talking about second trimester abortions, so your comparison to chemotherapy isn’t on point. (Though the fact that at least a hundred women got fully viable fetuses aborted from a criminal in Pennsylvania suggests that non-medically necessary abortions may be much more common than is assumed). But as for second trimester abortions, this is from a very pro-choice view point medical study: “This characterization, however, is not informed by empirical data on women seeking later abortions. The body of research on women who have dealt with fetal anomalies or life endangerment during pregnancy describes their stories as narratives of pregnancy wantedness and tragic circumstances. We do not know how accurately these narratives characterize the circumstances of women who seek later abortions for reasons other than fetal anomaly or life endangerment. But data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment”
Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2013, 45(4):210–218, doi: 10.1363/4521013
They suggest that one of the statistically significant factors is that some of the women had trouble getting an earlier abortion, though even in that the effect size isn’t nearly as large as you probably assume. There really do seem to be quite a few women who get medically elective abortions even well into the second trimester (and the third).
Tony P, I’m talking about second trimester abortions, so your comparison to chemotherapy isn’t on point. (Though the fact that at least a hundred women got fully viable fetuses aborted from a criminal in Pennsylvania suggests that non-medically necessary abortions may be much more common than is assumed). But as for second trimester abortions, this is from a very pro-choice view point medical study: “This characterization, however, is not informed by empirical data on women seeking later abortions. The body of research on women who have dealt with fetal anomalies or life endangerment during pregnancy describes their stories as narratives of pregnancy wantedness and tragic circumstances. We do not know how accurately these narratives characterize the circumstances of women who seek later abortions for reasons other than fetal anomaly or life endangerment. But data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment”
Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2013, 45(4):210–218, doi: 10.1363/4521013
They suggest that one of the statistically significant factors is that some of the women had trouble getting an earlier abortion, though even in that the effect size isn’t nearly as large as you probably assume. There really do seem to be quite a few women who get medically elective abortions even well into the second trimester (and the third).
Via our pals at BJ, we have this pair of items.
This makes me weirdly happy. Very much so.
Enjoy the 4th everyone. Don’t blow anything up that isn’t supposed to blow up, make sure your pets and PTSD-afflicted neighbors have a safe cool and dark place to chill out until the explosions are over.
Have a hot dog or two, a big old slice of watermelon, and keep on keeping on.
Via our pals at BJ, we have this pair of items.
This makes me weirdly happy. Very much so.
Enjoy the 4th everyone. Don’t blow anything up that isn’t supposed to blow up, make sure your pets and PTSD-afflicted neighbors have a safe cool and dark place to chill out until the explosions are over.
Have a hot dog or two, a big old slice of watermelon, and keep on keeping on.
Not sure why you haven’t addressed the body part donation issue, Sebastian. I guess that when non-pregnant people are confronted with the concept of being forced to save someone else’s life, even a fully formed person, in a way that poses discomfort or risks to their own health, they mostly think it’s ridiculous.
It’s not ridiculous.
Not sure why you haven’t addressed the body part donation issue, Sebastian. I guess that when non-pregnant people are confronted with the concept of being forced to save someone else’s life, even a fully formed person, in a way that poses discomfort or risks to their own health, they mostly think it’s ridiculous.
It’s not ridiculous.
I would suggest folks assessing Sebastian’s post at 4:16 above read the entire study, because he has cherry picked one statement and taken it out of context. True, the study found that women obtaining abortions after 20 weeks have delayed their decision for reasons that are not necessarily due to fetal abnormalities or health of the woman. The major reasons are found to be: (1.) Not recognizing the pregnancy-yes, this happens!; (2.) Difficulty making the decision-don’t see how you could complain about that! (3.) Disagreement with partner-it’s complex! (4) Finding a facility-ergo, by limiting access, we can blame conservatives for a significant number of ‘late term’ abortions, right? (5-6.) Cost and/or lack of insurance-well, obviously if we did not have poor people, or uninsured people, we would have fewer late term abortions! QED!
Weirdly, the study had this caveat at the end:
“Our study has several important limitations. Our data are limited by the exclusion of women who sought later abortions on grounds of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.”
But there is no data presented about what portion of these “late term” procedures are undertaken for those reasons.
Remember folks, when it comes to 3rd trimester abortions (NOT 20 weeks), we are discussing about 1% of the procedures.
And it should also be noted that Sebastian, sooner or later, just about always brings up the Gosnell case in ANY discussion about abortion. You will notice how he so easily generalized from that case above, because you “know” the Gosnell case says everything there is to say about late term abortions.
Time to set off some fireworks. Thanks.
I would suggest folks assessing Sebastian’s post at 4:16 above read the entire study, because he has cherry picked one statement and taken it out of context. True, the study found that women obtaining abortions after 20 weeks have delayed their decision for reasons that are not necessarily due to fetal abnormalities or health of the woman. The major reasons are found to be: (1.) Not recognizing the pregnancy-yes, this happens!; (2.) Difficulty making the decision-don’t see how you could complain about that! (3.) Disagreement with partner-it’s complex! (4) Finding a facility-ergo, by limiting access, we can blame conservatives for a significant number of ‘late term’ abortions, right? (5-6.) Cost and/or lack of insurance-well, obviously if we did not have poor people, or uninsured people, we would have fewer late term abortions! QED!
Weirdly, the study had this caveat at the end:
“Our study has several important limitations. Our data are limited by the exclusion of women who sought later abortions on grounds of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.”
But there is no data presented about what portion of these “late term” procedures are undertaken for those reasons.
Remember folks, when it comes to 3rd trimester abortions (NOT 20 weeks), we are discussing about 1% of the procedures.
And it should also be noted that Sebastian, sooner or later, just about always brings up the Gosnell case in ANY discussion about abortion. You will notice how he so easily generalized from that case above, because you “know” the Gosnell case says everything there is to say about late term abortions.
Time to set off some fireworks. Thanks.
Thanks, bobbyp. You’re wonderful, calm, measured, and correct.
I was surprised to have enjoyed the fireworks this year, even though I’m feeling so dispirited. It’s going to be hard going, but it’s worth trying to bring our country to where it actually should stand: liberty and justice for all.
Thanks, bobbyp. You’re wonderful, calm, measured, and correct.
I was surprised to have enjoyed the fireworks this year, even though I’m feeling so dispirited. It’s going to be hard going, but it’s worth trying to bring our country to where it actually should stand: liberty and justice for all.
I’m not saying anything about Gosnell. I’m saying that the Gosnell investigation revealed that more than a hundred women had viable fetuses aborted by him. Unless you are claiming that he kidnapped them and gave the abortions against their consent, that shows that the idea that women only seek late term abortions because of medical necessity is false. Gosenell may show other things about the abortion situation in the US, but the only one I’m mentioning here is that it revealed that an astonishing number of women in a single city sought and received abortions of fully viable fetuses over the course of just a few years.
I’m not saying anything about Gosnell. I’m saying that the Gosnell investigation revealed that more than a hundred women had viable fetuses aborted by him. Unless you are claiming that he kidnapped them and gave the abortions against their consent, that shows that the idea that women only seek late term abortions because of medical necessity is false. Gosenell may show other things about the abortion situation in the US, but the only one I’m mentioning here is that it revealed that an astonishing number of women in a single city sought and received abortions of fully viable fetuses over the course of just a few years.
This set of proposals – whether you think them right or wrong – seem to me rather more coherent than simply court packing, which as the article points out is merely a call to escalation.
And some of these ideas have far more merit on their own terms, irrespective of partisan advantage.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/04/democrats-majority-rules-norms-trump-2020-218947
They should take advantage of legal and constitutional silences to “transform American politics in a lasting progressive direction,” Faris writes. “Doing so will require party leaders to pursue policy changes that will be ridiculed by their opponents as outrageous affronts to democratic decency and received by their own voters with puzzlement or even shock. They need to do it anyway.”
The list of those changes is dizzying. Grant statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico, and break California in seven, with the goal of adding 16 new Democrats to the Senate. Expand the Supreme Court and the federal courts, packing them with liberal judges. Move to multi-member House districts to roll back the effects of partisan gerrymandering. Pass a new Voting Rights Act, including nationwide automatic voter registration, felon enfranchisement and an end to voter ID laws. Grant citizenship to millions of undocumented immigrants, creating a host of new Democratic-leaning voters: “Republicans have always feared that immigration would change the character of American society. Democrats should reward them with their very worst nightmare.”
…But even if Democrats quibble with the details, they should work to match his program’s coherence, of interlocking actions that are driven by realignment rather than resentment. If Democrats can’t fully commit to that course, then they should pursue something like the Normalcy program as a distant second best. The worst course of action would be an unfocused, impulsive, spasmodic program of norm-breaking, one that begins without a sense of where it is supposed to end. In that case, the logic of escalation will supply an ending.
This set of proposals – whether you think them right or wrong – seem to me rather more coherent than simply court packing, which as the article points out is merely a call to escalation.
And some of these ideas have far more merit on their own terms, irrespective of partisan advantage.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/04/democrats-majority-rules-norms-trump-2020-218947
They should take advantage of legal and constitutional silences to “transform American politics in a lasting progressive direction,” Faris writes. “Doing so will require party leaders to pursue policy changes that will be ridiculed by their opponents as outrageous affronts to democratic decency and received by their own voters with puzzlement or even shock. They need to do it anyway.”
The list of those changes is dizzying. Grant statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico, and break California in seven, with the goal of adding 16 new Democrats to the Senate. Expand the Supreme Court and the federal courts, packing them with liberal judges. Move to multi-member House districts to roll back the effects of partisan gerrymandering. Pass a new Voting Rights Act, including nationwide automatic voter registration, felon enfranchisement and an end to voter ID laws. Grant citizenship to millions of undocumented immigrants, creating a host of new Democratic-leaning voters: “Republicans have always feared that immigration would change the character of American society. Democrats should reward them with their very worst nightmare.”
…But even if Democrats quibble with the details, they should work to match his program’s coherence, of interlocking actions that are driven by realignment rather than resentment. If Democrats can’t fully commit to that course, then they should pursue something like the Normalcy program as a distant second best. The worst course of action would be an unfocused, impulsive, spasmodic program of norm-breaking, one that begins without a sense of where it is supposed to end. In that case, the logic of escalation will supply an ending.
I again hate to step in again, but…. I did not remember Sebastian speaking about Gosnell here and a google search shows that it was only one peripheral mention by him. Brett was the person who most often mentioned Gosnell. Now, I know that Sebastian actively participates on several other boards (hence my question about where court packing was a thing) and I don’t go into the comments very often but here, he’s not brought up Gosnell.
My own personal approach to what people say in other places is that I won’t raise it because I feel one should give the person the opportunity start from a fresh slate and restate what they believe cause I think that people can be goaded into writing things that they may not support, but the back and forth leads them to that. While that may not always be the best philosophy, as recent events may suggest, I think that it is necessary to keep discussion on a level keel.
This is one reason why I am thankful that we apparently have so few people tweeting here, I really wouldn’t like the comments to turn into references to things people tweeted.
I return you to your regularly scheduled program.
I again hate to step in again, but…. I did not remember Sebastian speaking about Gosnell here and a google search shows that it was only one peripheral mention by him. Brett was the person who most often mentioned Gosnell. Now, I know that Sebastian actively participates on several other boards (hence my question about where court packing was a thing) and I don’t go into the comments very often but here, he’s not brought up Gosnell.
My own personal approach to what people say in other places is that I won’t raise it because I feel one should give the person the opportunity start from a fresh slate and restate what they believe cause I think that people can be goaded into writing things that they may not support, but the back and forth leads them to that. While that may not always be the best philosophy, as recent events may suggest, I think that it is necessary to keep discussion on a level keel.
This is one reason why I am thankful that we apparently have so few people tweeting here, I really wouldn’t like the comments to turn into references to things people tweeted.
I return you to your regularly scheduled program.
break California in seven, with the goal of adding 16 new Democrats to the Senate.
an interesting idea on its own merits, perhaps, but i’m not sure it would result in 16 new (D) senators.
break California in seven, with the goal of adding 16 new Democrats to the Senate.
an interesting idea on its own merits, perhaps, but i’m not sure it would result in 16 new (D) senators.
an interesting idea on its own merits, perhaps, but i’m not sure it would result in 16 new (D) senators.
Breaking California into seven would result in 12 new senators – the other four (almost certainly Democrat) come from DC and Puerto Rico.
Of the twelve new post California senators, even if one allocated votes proportionally (which is likely being generous to Republican prospects), eight would be Democrat and four Republican – a net gain of at least four then, so total net minimum gain of eight.
an interesting idea on its own merits, perhaps, but i’m not sure it would result in 16 new (D) senators.
Breaking California into seven would result in 12 new senators – the other four (almost certainly Democrat) come from DC and Puerto Rico.
Of the twelve new post California senators, even if one allocated votes proportionally (which is likely being generous to Republican prospects), eight would be Democrat and four Republican – a net gain of at least four then, so total net minimum gain of eight.
If packing the Senate by breaking up CA then breaking up TX in retaliation.
If packing the Senate by breaking up CA then breaking up TX in retaliation.
These are all interesting ideas. That said, folks in CA may or may not want to be split into seven separate new states.
With all due respect to all of the ideas presented here, I think folks are making this much more complicated than it needs to be, or should be. Enough so that there’s a very high likelihood of missing the mark entirely.
Trump’s favorable ratings are basically at something like 40%. That’s not so great. He lost the popular vote by a significant margin, and would probably do worse were he to run today.
The (R)’s have been able to dominate national politics at a level much greater than their actual level of support deserves. Because they’ve read their freaking Gramsci. They’ve done a really good job of working the existing institutions to their advantage.
Drawing district lines, appointing judges per a strict Federalist Society litmus test, suppressing the votes of people who tend to vote (D). And, when all else fails, plain old cheating.
The solution to (R) dominance at the national level is to WIN MORE ELECTIONS. Run a (D) in every freaking race available. Every country, every city, every state, every Congressional district, every Senate seat.
And they need to figure out what their freaking message is. It’s not a complicated message, it goes like this:
(R)’s are coming after your jobs, your retirement, your health care, your schools, your libraries, every fucking thing you have or own. Your water, your air, the food you eat. They are coming for it. Their clients are billionaires, and their clients aren’t happy with their billions, they want your measly hundreds and thousands as well.
Win elections. All of the other stuff is interesting, but if you don’t win elections, it won’t matter. It will make zero difference.
Win elections. When you win elections, you can re-instate voting rights laws. When you win elections, you get to re-draw congressional districts so they don’t look like a ball of snakes. When you win elections, you get to appoint judges, and approve them, too.
Spend money, volunteer time, drive people to polls, canvass neighborhoods.
Win elections. There is no substitute.
These are all interesting ideas. That said, folks in CA may or may not want to be split into seven separate new states.
With all due respect to all of the ideas presented here, I think folks are making this much more complicated than it needs to be, or should be. Enough so that there’s a very high likelihood of missing the mark entirely.
Trump’s favorable ratings are basically at something like 40%. That’s not so great. He lost the popular vote by a significant margin, and would probably do worse were he to run today.
The (R)’s have been able to dominate national politics at a level much greater than their actual level of support deserves. Because they’ve read their freaking Gramsci. They’ve done a really good job of working the existing institutions to their advantage.
Drawing district lines, appointing judges per a strict Federalist Society litmus test, suppressing the votes of people who tend to vote (D). And, when all else fails, plain old cheating.
The solution to (R) dominance at the national level is to WIN MORE ELECTIONS. Run a (D) in every freaking race available. Every country, every city, every state, every Congressional district, every Senate seat.
And they need to figure out what their freaking message is. It’s not a complicated message, it goes like this:
(R)’s are coming after your jobs, your retirement, your health care, your schools, your libraries, every fucking thing you have or own. Your water, your air, the food you eat. They are coming for it. Their clients are billionaires, and their clients aren’t happy with their billions, they want your measly hundreds and thousands as well.
Win elections. All of the other stuff is interesting, but if you don’t win elections, it won’t matter. It will make zero difference.
Win elections. When you win elections, you can re-instate voting rights laws. When you win elections, you get to re-draw congressional districts so they don’t look like a ball of snakes. When you win elections, you get to appoint judges, and approve them, too.
Spend money, volunteer time, drive people to polls, canvass neighborhoods.
Win elections. There is no substitute.
…break California in seven…
In 2016, a proposal to split California in six couldn’t get on the ballot. This year, a proposal to split California in three made the ballot, but is polling 72-17 against. Seems pretty clear that Californians don’t see much benefit from dividing the state. I am generally opposed to asking individual states to “take one for the team.” What do you offer California to make them see it as being in their best interest?
…break California in seven…
In 2016, a proposal to split California in six couldn’t get on the ballot. This year, a proposal to split California in three made the ballot, but is polling 72-17 against. Seems pretty clear that Californians don’t see much benefit from dividing the state. I am generally opposed to asking individual states to “take one for the team.” What do you offer California to make them see it as being in their best interest?
I pretty well agree with russell, ‘win elections’, but the prospectus laid out did make rather more sense than merely packing the SC – and some of the ideas (statehood for Puerto Rico; new VRA; the right to vote for released felons, for example) make sense on their own merits.
If packing the Senate by breaking up CA then breaking up TX in retaliation.
Would likely end up with no massive gain for the Republicans, as its quite a bit smaller, and the voting percentages are much closer than California.
What do you offer California to make them see it as being in their best interest
Other than a federal government not antithetical to the majority of voters, not so much.
I pretty well agree with russell, ‘win elections’, but the prospectus laid out did make rather more sense than merely packing the SC – and some of the ideas (statehood for Puerto Rico; new VRA; the right to vote for released felons, for example) make sense on their own merits.
If packing the Senate by breaking up CA then breaking up TX in retaliation.
Would likely end up with no massive gain for the Republicans, as its quite a bit smaller, and the voting percentages are much closer than California.
What do you offer California to make them see it as being in their best interest
Other than a federal government not antithetical to the majority of voters, not so much.
The CA state splitting thing doesn’t seem likely to pay off nearly as well as people in DC seem to think. California has all of the same issues of the city/rural Democratic/Republican divide that the nation as a whole has. Unless the map splits CITIES into different states, I’d be careful of assuming that much more than half of those states end up regularly Democratic. The reason it looks good on first glance is because LA and the SF area go massively for Democrats. The moment you get to medium sized cities like Sacramento and Fresno (whose combined population is bigger than DC btw) you are getting places where Republicans might be able to get senators. To meet it seems like a dangerous game.
“What do you offer California to make them see it as being in their best interest
Other than a federal government not antithetical to the majority of voters, not so much.”
Is that worth it? Is maybe gaining a few more votes in the Senate worth breaking up one of the powerhouses of the Western world? Maybe, but the case isn’t as obvious as you suggest. I would tend to think that breaking away from the US entirely would be better for California (still bad, but probably better) than breaking it into a bunch of tiny pieces.
The CA state splitting thing doesn’t seem likely to pay off nearly as well as people in DC seem to think. California has all of the same issues of the city/rural Democratic/Republican divide that the nation as a whole has. Unless the map splits CITIES into different states, I’d be careful of assuming that much more than half of those states end up regularly Democratic. The reason it looks good on first glance is because LA and the SF area go massively for Democrats. The moment you get to medium sized cities like Sacramento and Fresno (whose combined population is bigger than DC btw) you are getting places where Republicans might be able to get senators. To meet it seems like a dangerous game.
“What do you offer California to make them see it as being in their best interest
Other than a federal government not antithetical to the majority of voters, not so much.”
Is that worth it? Is maybe gaining a few more votes in the Senate worth breaking up one of the powerhouses of the Western world? Maybe, but the case isn’t as obvious as you suggest. I would tend to think that breaking away from the US entirely would be better for California (still bad, but probably better) than breaking it into a bunch of tiny pieces.
This year, a proposal to split California in three made the ballot, but is polling 72-17 against. Seems pretty clear that Californians don’t see much benefit from dividing the state.
Californians, even those who came here from elsewhere (which is most of us), tend to take an almost nationalistic view of our state. At least, that’s the easiest analogy I can think of.
That is, we cheerfully squabble over the (nominal) conflict between Northern and Southern California, but don’t really embrace splitting the state even so. Maybe, maybe, you could get a majority to sign on to a two-way split of the state. But dividing into more pieces would be a non-starter — as the polls cited demonstrate.
This year, a proposal to split California in three made the ballot, but is polling 72-17 against. Seems pretty clear that Californians don’t see much benefit from dividing the state.
Californians, even those who came here from elsewhere (which is most of us), tend to take an almost nationalistic view of our state. At least, that’s the easiest analogy I can think of.
That is, we cheerfully squabble over the (nominal) conflict between Northern and Southern California, but don’t really embrace splitting the state even so. Maybe, maybe, you could get a majority to sign on to a two-way split of the state. But dividing into more pieces would be a non-starter — as the polls cited demonstrate.
If you split CA, you also split its electoral vote and no longer have 55 EVs automatically going (D).
If you split CA, you also split its electoral vote and no longer have 55 EVs automatically going (D).
If gaining more representation in the US Senate were important to Californians, splitting up might make sense to them. To the extent that the State of California is big enough and rich enough to resist the depredations of a federal government run by Mitch McConnell and the He, Trump crime family, sticking together is obviously a better option.
Anyway, Californians don’t have quite the same historical tradition of revolution and independence (which we all supposedly celebrated yesterday) that us NE urban corridor types do:)
–TP
If gaining more representation in the US Senate were important to Californians, splitting up might make sense to them. To the extent that the State of California is big enough and rich enough to resist the depredations of a federal government run by Mitch McConnell and the He, Trump crime family, sticking together is obviously a better option.
Anyway, Californians don’t have quite the same historical tradition of revolution and independence (which we all supposedly celebrated yesterday) that us NE urban corridor types do:)
–TP
“What do you offer California to make them see it as being in their best interest?”
As Coloradans, we could the new Democratic californias more water.
To the new republican californias, we shut the water off completely.
That said, California is the 5th largest economy in the world, despite the conservative republican carnivorous animal kingdom believing since forever that it is run by commies, hippies, illegal hispanics, gays, Hollywood Jews, and wj.
“If Texas were a country our economy would rank # 10…in the WORLD.”
Says vermin governor abbott. Kick THEIR asses out of the country and let their buddy Putin become their sugar daddy.
If Texas were a country, the real America would have to double its nuclear deterrent and triple ICE’s immigration thugs to keep the fuckers from ruining the rest of the country.
Austin, and maybe Houston, can become sanctuary cities, supported via foreign aid from the other 49 states, where decent Texans can hide when Texas republicans start killing them.
It’s time Mexico lines up nuclear launch sites along the border with Texas too.
“What do you offer California to make them see it as being in their best interest?”
As Coloradans, we could the new Democratic californias more water.
To the new republican californias, we shut the water off completely.
That said, California is the 5th largest economy in the world, despite the conservative republican carnivorous animal kingdom believing since forever that it is run by commies, hippies, illegal hispanics, gays, Hollywood Jews, and wj.
“If Texas were a country our economy would rank # 10…in the WORLD.”
Says vermin governor abbott. Kick THEIR asses out of the country and let their buddy Putin become their sugar daddy.
If Texas were a country, the real America would have to double its nuclear deterrent and triple ICE’s immigration thugs to keep the fuckers from ruining the rest of the country.
Austin, and maybe Houston, can become sanctuary cities, supported via foreign aid from the other 49 states, where decent Texans can hide when Texas republicans start killing them.
It’s time Mexico lines up nuclear launch sites along the border with Texas too.
Anyway, Californians don’t have quite the same historical tradition of revolution and independence (which we all supposedly celebrated yesterday) that us NE urban corridor types do.)
Actually, we do have such a history. Indeed, the state flag still says “California Republic”, which dates back to the days after we rebelled against Mexico — before we joined the United States.
Anyway, Californians don’t have quite the same historical tradition of revolution and independence (which we all supposedly celebrated yesterday) that us NE urban corridor types do.)
Actually, we do have such a history. Indeed, the state flag still says “California Republic”, which dates back to the days after we rebelled against Mexico — before we joined the United States.
Right, I didn’t even think about the fact that the Presidential electoral votes would end up split. That seems tactically dubious.
Right, I didn’t even think about the fact that the Presidential electoral votes would end up split. That seems tactically dubious.
Way up in this luscious thread, Russell, I believe, and hairshirthedonist, talked about the mp supporters they know.
I’m acquainted with a few too, all nice people, unless the subject of politics is raised. Any conversation in that direction or about mp is a non-starter. Like cultists whose bodies have been snatched, their eyeballs roll back in their sockets and they begin declaiming their victimhood and mp’s God-like qualities. The most radical right wingers can do no wrong in their fake news opinions.
WE are Evil incarnate, never to be permitted political power again and prevented by ALL means to do so.
I’m done with being advised to understand or humor them. I’ve never witnessed anything like it.
It’s like talking to this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlyBNSD_RiY
But they are nice people. Nice in the way one’s neighbors in Bosnia or the Hutu parts of Rwanda were nice, until they weren’t. Perfectly nice human beings, Schubert aficionados, like the neighbors of German Jews were, as Walker Percy described many times, standing in their yards, a few of them spitting and taunting, as the boxcars full of the OTHER rolled by on the tracks heading for the ovens in Poland.
Way up in this luscious thread, Russell, I believe, and hairshirthedonist, talked about the mp supporters they know.
I’m acquainted with a few too, all nice people, unless the subject of politics is raised. Any conversation in that direction or about mp is a non-starter. Like cultists whose bodies have been snatched, their eyeballs roll back in their sockets and they begin declaiming their victimhood and mp’s God-like qualities. The most radical right wingers can do no wrong in their fake news opinions.
WE are Evil incarnate, never to be permitted political power again and prevented by ALL means to do so.
I’m done with being advised to understand or humor them. I’ve never witnessed anything like it.
It’s like talking to this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlyBNSD_RiY
But they are nice people. Nice in the way one’s neighbors in Bosnia or the Hutu parts of Rwanda were nice, until they weren’t. Perfectly nice human beings, Schubert aficionados, like the neighbors of German Jews were, as Walker Percy described many times, standing in their yards, a few of them spitting and taunting, as the boxcars full of the OTHER rolled by on the tracks heading for the ovens in Poland.
If Texas were a country
Let them go.
Then, we’ll invade them and take their oil.
Hahahaha!
unless the subject of politics is raised
I don’t raise it.
If Texas were a country
Let them go.
Then, we’ll invade them and take their oil.
Hahahaha!
unless the subject of politics is raised
I don’t raise it.
but the case isn’t as obvious as you suggest…
I thought Id made it fairly clear that the case for that particular suggestion wasn’t obvious at all ?
but the case isn’t as obvious as you suggest…
I thought Id made it fairly clear that the case for that particular suggestion wasn’t obvious at all ?
russell:
Is there any use is making a positive message first? As in, “We (Ds) are working to preserve your retirement benefits, your health care, your air, the food you eat…..etc.” And only secondly: “And the Rs want nothing more than to take all that away from you.”
I’m just as clueless as everyone else; if I weren’t, I would be running successful campaigns for all sorts of candidates. But ISTM that “Here is what we stand for” has got to have some content beyond “those other people are evil and they’re coming after your shit.”
russell:
Is there any use is making a positive message first? As in, “We (Ds) are working to preserve your retirement benefits, your health care, your air, the food you eat…..etc.” And only secondly: “And the Rs want nothing more than to take all that away from you.”
I’m just as clueless as everyone else; if I weren’t, I would be running successful campaigns for all sorts of candidates. But ISTM that “Here is what we stand for” has got to have some content beyond “those other people are evil and they’re coming after your shit.”
Is there any use is making a positive message first?
Yes.
And that is why I should be kept far far away from any position of public responsibility.
🙂
Is there any use is making a positive message first?
Yes.
And that is why I should be kept far far away from any position of public responsibility.
🙂
Tell would be immigrants that they can become citizens if they live in Puerto Rico for five years.
Tell would be immigrants that they can become citizens if they live in Puerto Rico for five years.
Pruitt resigns.
Count the silverware.
Pruitt resigns.
Count the silverware.
“those other people are evil and they’re coming after your shit.”
LOL. I must say it does seem to be effective when it comes to GOP voters. But point taken. We can do better.
“those other people are evil and they’re coming after your shit.”
LOL. I must say it does seem to be effective when it comes to GOP voters. But point taken. We can do better.
That seems tactically dubious.-Sebastian H.
Sebastian and I agree on this. So there you are…oil, water, the internets, a miracle occurs.
I’d be more inclined, if there was ever the opportunity to do so, to incorporate some other ideas such as promoted in this book.
I am particularly fond of legislating a “path to citizenship” for all current “illegal” immigrants, and totally reform the current way we undertake these policies. To those who cry “amnesty” I would reply, “Kiss my ass. We asked them to come here.”
bobbyp
incurable dreamer
That seems tactically dubious.-Sebastian H.
Sebastian and I agree on this. So there you are…oil, water, the internets, a miracle occurs.
I’d be more inclined, if there was ever the opportunity to do so, to incorporate some other ideas such as promoted in this book.
I am particularly fond of legislating a “path to citizenship” for all current “illegal” immigrants, and totally reform the current way we undertake these policies. To those who cry “amnesty” I would reply, “Kiss my ass. We asked them to come here.”
bobbyp
incurable dreamer
Pruitt resigns.
Count the silverware.
More to the point, don’t lose track of the fact that he was only the most visible. But probably not nearly the biggest crook in the administration.
Pruitt resigns.
Count the silverware.
More to the point, don’t lose track of the fact that he was only the most visible. But probably not nearly the biggest crook in the administration.
“Kiss my ass. We asked them to come here.”
This murderous government is going to begin revoking the citizenship of already naturalized American citizens.
As to Pruitt, they have plenty of murderers to succeed the thieving, lying Pruitt, who must be prosecuted and when found guilty, shot in the head for waste, fraud, abuse, and general mayhem.
One is already been chosen and the bench is deep.
“Kiss my ass. We asked them to come here.”
This murderous government is going to begin revoking the citizenship of already naturalized American citizens.
As to Pruitt, they have plenty of murderers to succeed the thieving, lying Pruitt, who must be prosecuted and when found guilty, shot in the head for waste, fraud, abuse, and general mayhem.
One is already been chosen and the bench is deep.
Fetuses die from the effects of pollution and the lack of medical care provided to mothers, both weapons used by republicans to murder pre-born and and post-born children.
Besides, when abortion is banned, only the criminal republicans with money whose daughters and wives wish to abort will have abortions, or at least safe ones, as it was forever before Roe versus Wade.
Fetuses die from the effects of pollution and the lack of medical care provided to mothers, both weapons used by republicans to murder pre-born and and post-born children.
Besides, when abortion is banned, only the criminal republicans with money whose daughters and wives wish to abort will have abortions, or at least safe ones, as it was forever before Roe versus Wade.
Not only that, but if the birthrate among the poor rises because abortion had been banned, we’ll once again start hearing from the usual racist suspects that all THOSE people do is clutter up the country and our schools with their hordes of kids.
I heard that said a million times by the republicans around me while I was growing up.
Not only that, but if the birthrate among the poor rises because abortion had been banned, we’ll once again start hearing from the usual racist suspects that all THOSE people do is clutter up the country and our schools with their hordes of kids.
I heard that said a million times by the republicans around me while I was growing up.
But probably not nearly the biggest crook in the administration.
It’s my impression that the whole world has a pretty good idea who that is.
But probably not nearly the biggest crook in the administration.
It’s my impression that the whole world has a pretty good idea who that is.
all THOSE people do is clutter up the country and our schools with their hordes of kids
As a UN official once said, “It’s not so much that they breed like rabbits, it’s that they’ve stopped dying like flies.” So actually, with their attacks on the ACA, maybe the Rs (or at least the far right) are trying to get “them” to start dying like flies again….
all THOSE people do is clutter up the country and our schools with their hordes of kids
As a UN official once said, “It’s not so much that they breed like rabbits, it’s that they’ve stopped dying like flies.” So actually, with their attacks on the ACA, maybe the Rs (or at least the far right) are trying to get “them” to start dying like flies again….
It won’t be a surprise if what “everybody knows” turns out, as so often, to be wrong. (Although not for lack of trying.)
Like maybe someone like Ross is really the biggest crook. And Trump turns out, once again, to be merely a wanna-be.
It won’t be a surprise if what “everybody knows” turns out, as so often, to be wrong. (Although not for lack of trying.)
Like maybe someone like Ross is really the biggest crook. And Trump turns out, once again, to be merely a wanna-be.
That depends if you measure the biggest crook by the actual amount of money stolen, or illicitly gained (as opposed to say the guy who sold his country out for a bunch of promises). Although, even by that measure, the money trail from Russia is likely to prove pretty immpressive. On the other hand, I’ve always subscribed to the theory that he was just pretending to be a billionaire, and talking up his wealth in a grifter-sting kind of way, so I’m also sympathetic to your point, wj. It’s just that I think he may have hit pay dirt when he ran/became POTUS.
That depends if you measure the biggest crook by the actual amount of money stolen, or illicitly gained (as opposed to say the guy who sold his country out for a bunch of promises). Although, even by that measure, the money trail from Russia is likely to prove pretty immpressive. On the other hand, I’ve always subscribed to the theory that he was just pretending to be a billionaire, and talking up his wealth in a grifter-sting kind of way, so I’m also sympathetic to your point, wj. It’s just that I think he may have hit pay dirt when he ran/became POTUS.
I’d agree that becoming President has probably been his biggest score. Especially if you count the take for his immediate family.
But while he hasn’t been as penny ante as Pruitt, he’s never been in the real big leagues. Always on the outside looking in, and resenting it.
And apparently totally unable to comprehend any measure of importance other than money. Otherwise he would be using the Presidency to become generally popular. Which, even after his first year in office, wouldn’t have been impossible.
I’d agree that becoming President has probably been his biggest score. Especially if you count the take for his immediate family.
But while he hasn’t been as penny ante as Pruitt, he’s never been in the real big leagues. Always on the outside looking in, and resenting it.
And apparently totally unable to comprehend any measure of importance other than money. Otherwise he would be using the Presidency to become generally popular. Which, even after his first year in office, wouldn’t have been impossible.
GftNC: I’m (in a friendly way) wondering what your current thinking of terminology like fascist and Nazi is. Maybe it’s time to discuss what those terms mean, and what terms we should use, and what ammunition we should use to call these people out.
GftNC: I’m (in a friendly way) wondering what your current thinking of terminology like fascist and Nazi is. Maybe it’s time to discuss what those terms mean, and what terms we should use, and what ammunition we should use to call these people out.
Thinking about this, for example.
Thinking about this, for example.
https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/who-andrew-wheeler-and-why-you-should-be-afraid-him
https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/who-andrew-wheeler-and-why-you-should-be-afraid-him
But while he hasn’t been as penny ante as Pruitt, he’s never been in the real big leagues. Always on the outside looking in, and resenting it.
Which goes to explain his admiration for Putin, who by some accounts is a contender for the world’s richest man. And biggest crook.
But while he hasn’t been as penny ante as Pruitt, he’s never been in the real big leagues. Always on the outside looking in, and resenting it.
Which goes to explain his admiration for Putin, who by some accounts is a contender for the world’s richest man. And biggest crook.