Good morning,
MCCONNELL, THE SUPREMES, AND TIME FOR CHANGE
I am a traditionalist. I believe that systems ought not be up-ended in the passing political moment because they “don’t quite fit” today. I believe the Constitution to be an important document, not merely because of the wisdom contained in that document—the separation of powers, the protection of the minority, the federal system, the rights of the accused, and the statements about what our nation stands for, among other things. It also is valuable because it sets something of a “base line” against which new ideas can be measured. If one strays too far from the Constitution, there should be a rebuttable presumption that the action should not be pursued. That said, it is not infallible. From time to time even the most basic considered accepted positions in the Constitution have been “massaged” to allow for the evolution of our system to react to new realities. The Constitution, I’ve decided, is a lot like the bible—it is susceptible to myriad interpretations. We now have a court that has preconceptions of what it wants and will bend the words (or lack of words) to their will, just as they maintain the Warren and Burger Courts did.
There are two ideas whose time has come, both of which can be achieved by the majority of both houses (neither of which will happen, though a blind adherence to tradition, political expediency, and cowardice—but one can dream). The first is the filibuster. It is antiquated, anti-majority, originally intended to further the interests of the Slave-states, and has been used not as a means of negotiating meaningful compromise but as a means of obstruction.
There are those who suggest that the filibuster is necessary in order to bring the minority views into the majority action. Fair enough. Then lower the number from the current 60 to 55 (for historic context, this number previously was lowered from 67). Or provide that to break a filibuster, one needs three members of the minority. But we cannot expect legislation emanating from the Senate without lowering the bar for a well-whipped minority to thwart any action.
The second is to change life terms of the Supreme Court. There have been several proposals floated in the past, including limiting the term to a number of years or creating an age limit.
When life spans were shorter and when the risk of dementia was not so great, perhaps there was a logic to lifetime appointments. But lifetime terms now are harmful—with Presidents appointing younger justices who serve longer. These elderly judges ossify the court and further distance the court from the society within which it lives. While I don’t think we should be taking a plebiscite each time a controversial issue arises, the Justices still need to be cognizant of the majority views of society and the trajectory of those views (by way of example, acceptance of same-sex marriage has consistently increased over time). Abortion rights early in pregnancy and reasonable limits on the Second Amendment fit within that arena—majorities of Americans support each and yet the Court seems all-too-willing to impose their views on us for what are tortured legal grounds that upend long-standing precedents. To remove the Court from the day-to-day of society turns them into a pedantic group that applies the Constitution rigidly (well, with “originalism,” as rigidly and consistently as the doctrinaire members of the Court see fit), and “educate” us on how we should just elect different representatives (cynically avoiding the question of gerrymandering) or how we can simply amending the Constitution (notwithstanding the obvious impossibility of doing so) if we want any meaningful change reflective of the times in which we live.
Peter Bain lays out these issues well and in a slightly different way:
“The cynicism of Republicans is reflected in McConnell’s early understanding that the Founders’ intent to prevent majority tyranny could be upended into enabling minority tyranny. He understood quickly that the filibuster would work to give him an effective veto over any legislation. He used this veto to, in effect, break the legislative branch. He knew that a broken legislature would necessitate that questions that rightly should have been resolved legislatively would end up in the courts, so his parallel effort was to pack the courts with conservative judges. We now see the fruits of his labor: a dysfunctional legislative branch and an actively conservative judicial branch. None of us should be surprised. While I have not crossed the bridge into supporting increasing the number of Supreme Court justices, I have arrived at the point where I advocate for both (1) mandatory Supreme Court retirement ages, and (2) the end of the filibuster.
And I would beg my Republican friends to look deep into themselves and recover their intellectual integrity. I remember a discussion back in the ‘80’s when I was explaining to a very liberal friend that I supported Reagan because I felt he would do the best job of representing conservative interests when he sat down with Tip O’Neill to negotiate important legislation. The reason it mattered was because the reaching of a compromise and the enactment of legislation then was a given, so one wanted one’s representative to be an effective advocate. I now have friends who explain to me that they are supporting a particular Republican candidate because they feel certain that said candidate will make damn sure that NO agreement is ever reached and that NO legislation will be enacted.”
MORE STUPID
The right is so busy placating gun owners that it will consider most anything that takes the attention away from the possession of guns. They will try to argue that it’s mental health issues alone and they try to limit those things they deem “contributing to” the corruption of minors. After a recent shooting, J.D. Vance’s floated a proposal to ban pornography, as it contributes to the decline in famili:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jd-vance-senate-pornography_n_628d3ba1e4b05cfc2692705b
Meanwhile, in the great state of Florida, the Special Olympics had a COVID vaccine requirement until the state came in to preserve American values and individualism. As remarkable as it may be to believe, Governor Ron DeSantis was behind threatening the Special Olympics with a fine of over $20MM unless it dropped its mandate. Under the threat of litigation, the Special Olympics had to defy their better instincts and drop the mandate: https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2022/06/04/special-olympics-drops-covid-19-vaccine-requirement-after-florida-threatens-275-million-fine/?sh=5d18fb5b5c95
And then just to show nuttiness from all sources, “In 2019, Richard Carranza, then the chancellor of New York City schools, held citywide ‘white supremacy culture” training sessions for administrators, highlighting what was termed “worship of the written word’ or emphasis on ‘documentation and writing skills, rather than the ‘ability to relate to others,’ as evidence of institutional racism.”
FINALLY, A POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY WITH APPEAL
From a failed candidate for Governor of California:
“I’m a liberal in my compassion for the vulnerable, I’m a libertarian in my passion for freedom and I’m a conservative in that I believe you need civilization to protect both of them. We must stop tearing down the institutions that are here to protect our civilization.”
Have a great day,
Glenn
From the archives:
Totally agree with the closing Political Philosophy, disagree regarding Supreme Court term limits (older can mean wiser - of course not always) and changing the filibuster (thank goodness someone can slow down the Government spending).