Amy Coney Barrett

DaveSchmidt said:

PVW said:

IOW, democratic accountability.

Then there’s an argument that democratic accountability to a plus-one majority in the Senate every two years could create instability in our laws, and that it’s a rather blunt accountability, calibrated more to voters’ party allegiance than to their support for or oppostion to any particular bill or policy. Worth another counter?

 Maybe true democracy means we should get what we ask for until we learn to ask for better things...

I would, for instance, take a world where the ACA was passed, then revoked, then re-passed and no longer litigated to one where it lingers on in this half live, life dead state. I think there would have been 51 Democrats in the Senate to pass a more carefully written, more comprehensive bill, and if the Republicans had then come to power and immediately revoked the whole thing, by the next election it would be quite clear exactly what parts of it were truly popular, what parts were not, and the popular parts would have been restored and the political price for revoking them quite high. It would have been disruptive to millions of people, but my intuition is that on net more people would have ended up covered over that time, and looking to the future, certainly many more Americans would have been able to feel more secure about the health coverage.

Then again, maybe Democrats would have run on restoring the ACA and have failed to gain power. That would have been useful too, as they then would either have recalibrated their proposal for the next election, or decided to shift energy to another important issue such as climate change or immigration. Not great for health care, but the actual world we live in has been the ACA on constant life support and little to no movement on other issues...

The weak point, again, is that this presumes a truly representative democracy, where political power truly rests on the choice of the citizens, but in practice there's a lot of voter suppression and political malapportionment, both in our formal constitutional design and via aggressive manipulation of electoral rules and norms.

DaveSchmidt said:

PVW said:

IOW, democratic accountability.

Then there’s an argument that democratic accountability to a plus-one majority in the Senate every two years could create instability in our laws, and that it’s a rather blunt accountability, calibrated more to voters’ party allegiance than to their support for or oppostion to any particular bill or policy. Worth another counter?

 Another, shorter answer -- maybe in a world of such blunt accountability, party allegiances, and what the parties stand for, shift to better align with actual voter interests.

PVW said:

DaveSchmidt said:

PVW said:

IOW, democratic accountability.

Then there’s an argument that democratic accountability to a plus-one majority in the Senate every two years could create instability in our laws, and that it’s a rather blunt accountability, calibrated more to voters’ party allegiance than to their support for or oppostion to any particular bill or policy. Worth another counter?

 Another, shorter answer -- maybe in a world of such blunt accountability, party allegiances, and what the parties stand for, shift to better align with actual voter interests.

End two-party rule, and have multiple parties govern would also be a really good idea. Because it forces one to compromise, because absolute (50%+1) majorities rarely exist in multi-party democracies.

Our political system should be alive and evolving. If we run into challenges we should be flexible and improve on what we have. The current system has run its course. And that doesn't mean I want t blow everything up just for the heck of it. But it does mean we should not be afraid of changing things that don't work. And if the change doesn't work, we"ll change it again.

Thanks as always, PVW, for the thoughtful replies. One of the thoughts they leave me with is that blunter democratic accountability favors the blunter party, taking the air out of big tents.

"taking the air out of big tents"

Ranked-choice voting?

mjc said:

"taking the air out of big tents"

Ranked-choice voting?

How do you see that playing out in general elections for Congress and the White House, mjc? Now that you’ve mentioned it, maybe ranked choice ends up sending third-party votes to the big-tent party, helping to shore it up in the battle with the blunter party. It that what you were thinking?

basil said:

End two-party rule, and have multiple parties govern would also be a really good idea.

End it how?

What I like about ranked choice voting is that it's a reform that's very much within reach -- already in use for local elections in some places, and in Maine will be used in this year's federal election for the first time.

I have mixed feelings about court packing and ending the filibuster.  When 60 vote cloture was in effect for the courts, it used to work to ensure more moderate justices, which I think was a positive.  With court packing and the end of the filibuster, we could have a change of court size every time the party in power switches; and also the polarization towards extremes of whichever party is in power would result in much more dramatic zigs and zags in laws, perhaps ultimately to the point of preventing one party from ever regaining control, although we're starting to move in that direction already.

Jasmo said:

I have mixed feelings about court packing and ending the filibuster.  When 60 vote cloture was in effect for the courts, it used to work to ensure more moderate justices, which I think was a positive.  With court packing and the end of the filibuster, we could have a change of court size every time the party in power switches; and also the polarization towards extremes of whichever party is in power would result in much more dramatic zigs and zags in laws, perhaps ultimately to the point of preventing one party from ever regaining control, although we're starting to move in that direction already.

The answer to this is not "court packing" by adding a couple of justices.  The answer is major court reform. SCOTUS needs to be brought into the 21st century by drastically expanding it, and then assigning randomly drawn smaller panels to each case. Double the size, maybe triple it. Allow the R's to select a fair amount of judges to the new openings. Create term limits by rotating SCOTUS judges back down to the appeals courts. The power of any single justice needs to be drastically diminished. The country can't afford to be drawn into near crisis because of the inopportune death of a judge.

That's the way to do it.

as for the filibuster - there really is no justification for making an already anti-democratic institution like the Senate even more anti-democratic. It's that simple.

Jasmo said:

I have mixed feelings about court packing and ending the filibuster.  When 60 vote cloture was in effect for the courts, it used to work to ensure more moderate justices, which I think was a positive.  With court packing and the end of the filibuster, we could have a change of court size every time the party in power switches; and also the polarization towards extremes of whichever party is in power would result in much more dramatic zigs and zags in laws, perhaps ultimately to the point of preventing one party from ever regaining control, although we're starting to move in that direction already.

 That ship has already sailed

The Senate was created as a compromise between large States and small States. That was the division that was envisioned. The Constitutional Convention didn't think much about political parties and certainly not about the extreme partisanship we now have. 

Standard parliamentary procedure such as set forth in Robert's Rules provides for a 2/3 vote to end debate. The original idea in the Senate was that any member could speak as long as he thought necessary to express his (always men) point of view. But then certain members began to abuse that privilege but getting up and talking about irrelevant matters or just reading from the Bible or whatever. That is what a filibuster was.

Then they changed the rule so that they would simply require a 2/3 (later 60 votes) to proceed.

The only rule that seems to me to be fair and sensible is that any Senator can speak for one hour on a Bill and if he or she wants permission to speak for more than an hour they have to get a majority vote to grant their request. 

I'm having a difficult time watching this hearing. Her statement about the toll this is taking on her and her family but duty called is hard to swallow as is her wounded doe, knitted brown visage.  She is guaranteed this lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land where she will decide the fate of millions of Americans. 

I keep trying to temper my reaction, questioning my objectivity. I'm losing. Perhaps she reminds me of the cruel, bitter, nuns that I experienced in high school, exercising their power with no confrontation. Maybe its the smug sanctimonius Trump supporters on Facebook. My sense is that she is inwardly salivating at the chance to rule over the lives of other women she deems sinful. And can everyone stop acting as if motherhood is the pathway to canonization. Ted Cruz is suggesting she is a wonderful role model for little girls. Please Senator Klobuchar at least make her cry.

Not helping that I am listening to a mostly male group present their views on abortion, particularly Lindsey Graham, who plugged his new bill on abortion limitation, I wonder which women in his life are influencing his opinion.

Maybe my anger is boiling over because there is nothing I can do to stop her inevitable confirmation which for many reasons, she doesn't deserve.

Morganna said:

Maybe my anger is boiling over because there is nothing I can do to stop her inevitable confirmation which for many reasons, she doesn't deserve.

Channel your anger into anything that helps put these people out of power, preferably for a long time. 

basil said:

Channel your anger into anything that helps put these people out of power, preferably for a long time. 

 If we were referring to an elected official, I agree but this is a lifetime appointment for a woman who has 3 years experience and whose vote will be the final say on issues of health, marraige rights, voting rights and a woman's right to chose. We can vote Trump out and assist in the election of Democrats in swing states but SCOTUS is for life.

I did get a measure of enjoyment from Klobuchar's questioning, and I am looking forward to a cross by Kamala Harris, but she wins in the end. My side loses and I'm struggling to find any consolation. I'm angry at the nominee, at the GOP, at those who didn't vote, at those who voted for Trump and at those who voted 3rd party. 

But yes, after the hearings are over, I'll be focused again on seeing Biden win the election along with a few Democratic senators.  I've already voted and one by one my Dem FB friends are posting photos of their ballots being dropped in ballot boxes.Looking forward to that victory but today is brutal.

Morganna said:

basil said:

Channel your anger into anything that helps put these people out of power, preferably for a long time. 

 If we were referring to an elected official, I agree but this is a lifetime appointment for a woman who has 3 years experience and whose vote will be the final say on issues of health, marraige rights, voting rights and a woman's right to chose. We can vote Trump out and assist in the election of Democrats in swing states but SCOTUS is for life.

I did get a measure of enjoyment from Klobuchar's questioning, and I am looking forward to a cross by Kamala Harris, but she wins in the end. My side loses and I'm struggling to find any consolation. I'm angry at the nominee, at the GOP, at those who didn't vote, at those who voted for Trump and at those who voted 3rd party. 

But yes, after the hearings are over, I'll be focused again on seeing Biden win the election along with a few Democratic senators.  I've already voted and one by one my Dem FB friends are posting photos of their ballots being dropped in ballot boxes.Looking forward to that victory but today is brutal.

I share your frustration, but we should try to figure out what we can learn from this (for one thing, both the Senate and SCOTUS are highly partisan political bodies, and we should treat them as such, rather than be naive about it)

I Love Kamala Harris!

No one can attack Barrett like Harris can. She has the more moral position which weakens the GOP attempts to canonize this self righteous prig.

Sen. Feinstein did a good job, Klobuchar was excellent, Whitehouse amazing, but Harris will leave a mark. I missed Hirono who I love.

Villains like Pompeo and Barr enjoy the attacks but Barrett is the type that will not like other women unmasking her before her family on the Affordable Care Act if she eventually rules to strike it down..  She will however uphold her sanctity among Trump followers and perhaps her family on Roe. That is why she is desperate to have that seat. She will go down in history as the vote that overturns Roe. 

"I would suggest we not pretend....

Pure Harris.

Another question she flubbed

Cruz doesn't want Charles Manson to be allowed to vote.  

Nice job again by Amy Klobuchar.  I'm comforted and feel validated by her apparent disgust towards Barrett's baton twirling and tap dancing.

Go Sheldon Whitehouse.

mjc said:

"taking the air out of big tents"

Ranked-choice voting?

 In Alaska, there's a ballot measure for open primaries and ranked choice voting for general elections, and in Massachusetts, a ballot measure for some state races and for federal congressional and senate seats.

Here's a good breakdown on what was probably the most important testimony so far - Sen. Whitehouses's breakdown of the forces behind Republican judicial nominations.

I would have really like to have seen someone take on the b.s. of originalism. They could have easily tied Barrett up in knots.

drummerboy said:

I would have really like to have seen someone take on the b.s. of originalism. They could have easily tied Barrett up in knots.

 I am sure birth control pills were not around in the 18th century. She wants to take America back two centuries...

firearms and a "well-regulated militia" meant something a lot different in the 1780s.  Someone should ask these "originalists" some pointed questions about the 2nd Amendment.

Klobuchar, Hirono, Harris and Whitehouse were not squeamish about ripping off her mask. 

Most of the Senators were ready to hand her a hankie after any direct questioning.

What does she care. She went from being a law professor, to the Court of Appeals and 3 years later to a lifetime appointment on SCOTUS all under Trump.

She is spending a few televised days being praised  by some and being challenged by others, while guaranteed a lifetime appointment to rule with the majority over ours lives. She was comforted and confessed it was so difficult she had to have a glass of wine that night. She claims it is a hardship and a sacrrifice for her and her family. Can someone please take this burden away from this frail flower.