tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post6055591984437258360..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Constitutional Hardball RevisitedJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-67857213663606941022011-07-20T19:47:58.894-05:002011-07-20T19:47:58.894-05:00I'm not quite sure when "advise and conse...I'm not quite sure when "advise and consent" became "rewrite that consumer protection bill to make me happy" or "give me my pork or you can't have your judge." I don't mind the pushing of rules to the edge, but these seem like completely new standards unrelated to the proper role of the Senate.Dan Tylerhttp://de-bushification.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-70280062053372272372011-07-20T16:17:33.135-05:002011-07-20T16:17:33.135-05:00I do not believe that any of the legal actions tak...<i>I do not believe that any of the legal actions taken by either campaign or any of the courts, including the final SCOTUS decision, count. ...However, the threatened intervention of the Florida legislature was entirely norm-shattering, and to me at least highly disturbing.</i><br /><br />Yes, but bear in mind that the SCOTUS decision was premised -- as Justice Scalia helpfully explained in his order stopping the recount -- on the view that Americans have no right to vote for president, that it's really state legislatures that choose electors. The modern norm is that they defer to the voters in doing this, but both the FL legislature's threatened intervention and SCOTUS's actual intervention (in effect nullifyiing FL's statutory election scheme) was based on the same belief, i.e. that legislatures don't have to consult the voters at all.<br /><br />And, not to side with Scalia, but that belief at least still admits of a democratic mechanism of correction: If the voters of a state didn't like their state legislature's choice of presidential electors, they could elect a different legislature. In fact, the worst thing about <i>Bush v. Gore</i> may be that it short-circuited the FL legislature's threat. Basically, SCOTUS did the FL Republican majority's dirty work for it; if it had stayed out of the case and the recount had gone for Gore, the legislature would then have had to either bow to that outcome or carry out its threat and risk the political consequences. Either way, the people of FL would ultimately have been in charge, and that's what SCOTUS was apparently at pains to prevent.<br /><br />The big question about norms, to me, isn't when they were first violated but which ones are most damaging to the premise of rights-respecting democratic government. That premise is that it's important for all sides to keep the various mechanisms of government working well long-term, and that therefore your side will have to accept defeat some of the time. If we're going to catalog recent norm violations, one of the lists should be compiled in order of severity -- the level of danger that each violation poses to the premise and possible future of a political culture based on elections, access to information, the possibility of grievances being redressed, etc.<br /><br />Also, note to CSH: I don't think there are any term limits in Congress. IIRC, some states tried to enact these in the '90s, but the federal courts struck them down as unconstitutional.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-18884807476392047022011-07-20T15:37:55.162-05:002011-07-20T15:37:55.162-05:00Slightly O/T, but the song "Where the Streets...Slightly O/T, but the song "Where the Streets Have No Name" came on the radio today, which always reminds me of how horrendously inappropriate that song was at the first Super Bowl halftime post-9/11, an inappropriateness exceeded only perhaps by how little anyone cared. The fact that no one cared called to mind this thread, explanation follows.<br /><br />There are several reasons no one cared. One is that most of us think U2, or at least Bono, are reasonably decent chaps. If we don't like them personally, we mostly like their hooks. After that, there's the fact that many of us are slobbering drunk by halftime of the Super Bowl, or else we're in the garage smoking and arguing with our cousin. <br /><br />Then there's the part related to this thread: first, even if we are paying attention to the song, and noticing how terrible those lyrics are for that moment, we're likely to feel disengaged, since any offense is diffused over millions of other viewers.<br /><br />Next, any offense we might take is not our bailiwick. Sure, its a bit weird to sing along to the dust cloud disappearing without a trace or building and burning them down while the victims somberly scroll up behind Bono, but we don't have any ownership or involvement in that situation, so the likeable hook of the song, which feels deceptively personal, takes precedence over those awful lyrics, which we never notice or take responsibility for anyway.<br /><br />The Congress today seems much more populated by fringe characters than Congress of the past. This is partly a result of term limits, partly the rise of single-issue candidates, and also the ease of flying home on the weekends, keeping the 535 of them out of each others' faces. As a result, Congresspeople tend to be as fringe to the culture of Congress as we are to the stupid utterances of a rock star at a Super Bowl halftime show. Fringe congressman care about as much for 'norms' as we ambulatory hamburgers do for some Irish rock star turning our national agony into a really cool hook. It is a really cool hook, after all, isn't it?<br /><br />Finally, the reason its worse for the Republicans may have something to do with the Republican caucus, courtesy of Tea Partiers, being disproportionately more populated by outsiders, who tend to care less.CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-38665872477210779702011-07-20T13:41:18.089-05:002011-07-20T13:41:18.089-05:00Voting rights and the Gulf of TomkinVoting rights and the Gulf of TomkinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-44650236315471862772011-07-20T12:53:39.727-05:002011-07-20T12:53:39.727-05:00While I agree with you, you also have to admit tha...While I agree with you, you also have to admit that the basic logic of the posts can be questioned by outsiders: "Only the other side does these things--those example of my side doing it aren't appropriate." I agree with you that the GOP has done more of this than the Dems and that those examples aren't good counterexamples, but it's easy to see how a person on the other side of the aisle might see disingenuity there.<br /><br />However, to build on this, what do we do with newer norms getting violated? So, I'm thinking here of redistricting: Ohio redistricted after EVERY election in the 1880s. The legislative majority consistently overreached and didn't protect their incumbents, but tried to expand their majorities. Thus, every election returned the out party to power and they went and promptly drew lines too aggressively. Texas (among other states) also had no compunctions about mid-decade line drawing until the redistricting revolution. Post-1960s, lines have to survive judicial scrutiny, so they aren't drawn as frequently. Is that because the norms have changed, or just the insertion of the judiciary into the process forcing a change in strategy? Or, take CA's redistricting history: new sets of lines in 1974 and 1984 due to pushback. Only in 1991 and 2001 did we get relatively uncontested lines out here, and 2001 is because they got the GOP to buy-in to the lines by drawing pro-incumbent lines. (1991 was contested, but the tech had gotten to the point where it was possible to draw nearly judge-proof lines). Now, in 2011, with a Citizens' Redistricting Commission, what do we get? Sour grapes from the GOP, and they're already prepping the signature drive (just waiting for final lines).<br /><br />Another example: WWI trench warfare. Did the lines not change much because a norm emerged against fighting each other, or because there was a true stalemate, making a fight pointless? <br /><br />Now, we could be informed observers, and know a norm when we see one. But, for these norms, is there a good way for us to know which are actually norms, and which are simple strategic choices to keep one's powder dry?Matt Jarvisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-23948741890240182682011-07-20T12:40:01.877-05:002011-07-20T12:40:01.877-05:00"The other hallmark of the cases I'm incl..."The other hallmark of the cases I'm including -- untimely redistricting, the changes in filibusters after the elections of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, recall elections and impeachment without significant cause -- is that they are shifts from one set of neutral rules to another."<br /><br />I would argue that some of these-- routine filibusters and recalls/impeachments without real cause--are not at all neutral, but terribly bad ways to govern. Making the Senate a place where all government action dies without either 60 majority Senators or massive expenditures of political capital results in piles of non-top tier legislation, nominations, etc. being left by the wayside because the majority has to focus on the top-ticket items.<br /><br />Similarly, a norm that chief executives can be removed from office for being out of step with a legislative majority means importing a feature of parliamentary politics without the context in which that feature makes sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com