The fight continues. The right wing says Sotomayor doesn't understand the role of a judge; the left says that neither does Scalia. The right wing claims she's a reverse racist; the left claims so is Alito. Ok. Whatever.
I think we're going to have to accept that Sotomayor will be seated. Unless a background check turns up literal skeletons, there's not much about her that's objectionable. She's pretty lukewarm. The thing that concerns me most is that, while she seems to be competent at her job as a judge, both trial and appellate, she is by no means outstanding. She hasn't written anything groundbreaking, hasn't put forth an opinion that changed anything significantly. She hasn't written anything that would give us a clear picture of how she would decide future rulings.
What types of decisions will come to the Court in the future (or, rather, will they bring upon themselves, with their writs of certiorari)? Will she overturn Roe? Unlikely, but who knows?. What about Heller? I hope not. If Olson and Boies's suit gets to the Court, how would she decide? I don't know. I don't know how fruitful it is to speculate on any opinion she would give once she got there. Souter was nominated by Bush I, but he's consistently written more left opinions than right. Similarly, Blackmun, nominated by Nixon, was expected to be a strong conservative, but drifted more and more to the left during his tenure; he wrote the majority opinion for Roe. Her record thus far seems to be full of straight, quiet opinions, nothing brash, nothing that stands out. Who knows what'll happened when she's seated on the bench?
Thursday, May 28
Wednesday, May 27
I must have been sick that day in law school
You know, the day the professor gave that aside where he said, 'look, disregard everything I'm teaching you about the rule of law, the role of the legislature, and the Constitution. The judicial branch is the most important one- it's where the policy is made.' That's probably why I felt like everyone else knew something I didn't. Huh.
Judge Sotomayor at Duke Law School in 2005:
There's a lot of talk going around about prospective Justice Sonia Sotomayor and speculation about how she'll act if she gets approved. One comment I've seen made consistently is not concerning her views, but about the blantant manner she expresses them.
From Brad at TLP:
I am not sure yet what this says for the future of our judiciary. Considering the way the rest of the government is turning, it's getting pretty scary to contemplate.
Judge Sotomayor at Duke Law School in 2005:
There's a lot of talk going around about prospective Justice Sonia Sotomayor and speculation about how she'll act if she gets approved. One comment I've seen made consistently is not concerning her views, but about the blantant manner she expresses them.
From Brad at TLP:
From our newly-named nominee to the Supreme
Court:
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Three problems with this:
1) Who is to say that the experiences I have, as a white male, aren’t rich?
2) Why do the proper adjudication of questions on law change based on the “richness of experience” of the judge?
3) What is a “better conclusion”? According to whom?
About the only way that such a statement makes sense is if you assume that the role of a judge is more “nuanced” than simply to apply the law dispassionately and predictably, but rather to enforce “social justice”. I am, of course, not surprised by such a conclusion from one of this administration’s nominees. But I’m a little surprised that it’s stated this blatantly.
I am not sure yet what this says for the future of our judiciary. Considering the way the rest of the government is turning, it's getting pretty scary to contemplate.
Sunday, May 24
But is it a good catch?
As a treat for the holiday weekend, MSNBC is having a marathon of "To Catch a Predator." "To Catch a Predator" is a show that lures men into a sting operation with the help of Perverted Justice, by letting the men think that they are meeting an underage person (so far only females) for sex.
Perverted Justice workers create usernames and profiles for underage girls and attempt to catch men who are trolling for sex. These people are very good at what they do. They tout themselves as the "largest and best anti-predator organization online." They have a good track record.
Dateline sets up a house rigged with cameras and Chris Hansen lurking behind curtains, with a barely overage decoy to welcome the men into the house. When the men leave the house they are pounced on by the local LEOs. Some of them cop to it, some of them claim they don't know what's going on. But by virtue of their being there, they all get busted. And, unfortunately for them, most of them are too stupid to shut up. Only a couple get a lawyer, and only a couple invoke their 5th amendment rights.
I am no stranger to child molesters and pedophiles. I've been studying pedophilia for about 4 years. I've read psychological studies and books and criminological studies and books. Despite all of my scholastic efforts, I still have not decided for myself whether I believe pedophilia to be a mental disorder or not- maybe it's another orientation, like homosexuality? I don't know. I may ride this fence forever.
Regardless of my feelings about pedophilia, though, I'm not sure I agree with the premise of "To Catch a Predator," or with organizations like Perverted Justice, or similar units within municipal agencies. It seems like the profiles that are set up are purposefully enticing, so that men who may be struggling with temptation would go over the edge with a little encouragement. I'm not saying that men preying on vulnerable young girls online is ok, or that it's not heinous. Of course, it's heinous. But in these situations, the situations on the show, these men aren't preying on vulnerable girls. They're talking to adults who are posing as kids. Where's the victim? Where's the crime? Does intent matter? Isn't it entrapment?
I understand the desire to "clean up the internet," and I'm not naive enough to say that the only thing that needs to be done is that parents need to watch their kids better. Something needs to happen, yes. But I don't think that entrapment is the answer. If it is entrapment. If pedophilia's actually not an orientation.
Perverted Justice workers create usernames and profiles for underage girls and attempt to catch men who are trolling for sex. These people are very good at what they do. They tout themselves as the "largest and best anti-predator organization online." They have a good track record.
Dateline sets up a house rigged with cameras and Chris Hansen lurking behind curtains, with a barely overage decoy to welcome the men into the house. When the men leave the house they are pounced on by the local LEOs. Some of them cop to it, some of them claim they don't know what's going on. But by virtue of their being there, they all get busted. And, unfortunately for them, most of them are too stupid to shut up. Only a couple get a lawyer, and only a couple invoke their 5th amendment rights.
I am no stranger to child molesters and pedophiles. I've been studying pedophilia for about 4 years. I've read psychological studies and books and criminological studies and books. Despite all of my scholastic efforts, I still have not decided for myself whether I believe pedophilia to be a mental disorder or not- maybe it's another orientation, like homosexuality? I don't know. I may ride this fence forever.
Regardless of my feelings about pedophilia, though, I'm not sure I agree with the premise of "To Catch a Predator," or with organizations like Perverted Justice, or similar units within municipal agencies. It seems like the profiles that are set up are purposefully enticing, so that men who may be struggling with temptation would go over the edge with a little encouragement. I'm not saying that men preying on vulnerable young girls online is ok, or that it's not heinous. Of course, it's heinous. But in these situations, the situations on the show, these men aren't preying on vulnerable girls. They're talking to adults who are posing as kids. Where's the victim? Where's the crime? Does intent matter? Isn't it entrapment?
I understand the desire to "clean up the internet," and I'm not naive enough to say that the only thing that needs to be done is that parents need to watch their kids better. Something needs to happen, yes. But I don't think that entrapment is the answer. If it is entrapment. If pedophilia's actually not an orientation.
Saturday, May 23
What's the rule of law got to do with it?
More speculation abounds concerning Obama's prospective pick to replace Justice Souter when he retires next month. I've heard names like Elena Kagan, Ruben Castillo, and even (*gasp*) Janet Napolitano. It's really sort of pointless to wonder about who specifically it will be, since there are so many from whom he could choose.
So what is he saying about the type of person he is looking for?
He told C-SPAN recently,
Well, that's nice that he doesn't feel compelled to choose a person solely based on a physical characteristic. While in the end, he may favor affirmative action anyway, he's so far claiming that it won't be his primary motivation.
He also said,
Ok... Now the Constitution doesn't say much about the requirements to be Supreme Court Justice. In fact, it doesn't anything, other than they "shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." So, while there's no official specifications, there's a rather large precedent of Justices who are well-educated, knowledgeable about the legal system. And, well, they're usually hired to follow the Constitution. It's alarming to see that in all of his speeches about choosing someone of the people, judicial restraint is not among the first things out of his mouth.
How does that bode for us, with Obama choosing for us a "citizen's citizen" to sit on the bench? Conservatives are terrified that he'll nominate a liberal who will do all kinds of dastardly things, like reaffirming Roe v. Wade and legalizing same-sex marriage. Liberals wonder if he'll seat a moderate who will swing with Kennedy and overrule Roe v. Wade (because those issues are the most important for our country). Me? I'm afraid that he'll appoint someone who embodies what he means when he says "different times call for different justices."
So what is he saying about the type of person he is looking for?
He told C-SPAN recently,
"I think in any given pick, my job is to just find somebody who I think is going to make a difference on the courts and look after the interest of the American people. And so, I don't feel weighed down by having to choose a Supreme Court justice based on demographics. I certainly think that ultimately we want a Supreme Court that is reflective of the incredible variety of the American people."
Well, that's nice that he doesn't feel compelled to choose a person solely based on a physical characteristic. While in the end, he may favor affirmative action anyway, he's so far claiming that it won't be his primary motivation.
He also said,
"What I want is not just ivory tower learning. I want somebody who has the intellectual fire power, but also a little bit of a common touch and has a practical sense of how the world works. Those criteria of common sense, practicality, a sense of what ordinary Americans are going through every day -- putting that in the mix, when the judges are looking at cases before them, it's very important."
Ok... Now the Constitution doesn't say much about the requirements to be Supreme Court Justice. In fact, it doesn't anything, other than they "shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." So, while there's no official specifications, there's a rather large precedent of Justices who are well-educated, knowledgeable about the legal system. And, well, they're usually hired to follow the Constitution. It's alarming to see that in all of his speeches about choosing someone of the people, judicial restraint is not among the first things out of his mouth.
How does that bode for us, with Obama choosing for us a "citizen's citizen" to sit on the bench? Conservatives are terrified that he'll nominate a liberal who will do all kinds of dastardly things, like reaffirming Roe v. Wade and legalizing same-sex marriage. Liberals wonder if he'll seat a moderate who will swing with Kennedy and overrule Roe v. Wade (because those issues are the most important for our country). Me? I'm afraid that he'll appoint someone who embodies what he means when he says "different times call for different justices."
Tuesday, May 19
Let me play devil's advocate: He's gay.
I was admittedly less than thrilled at my choice of candidates last November. I ended up going with Bob Barr (and am now disappointed after discovering he introduced the DOMA). But there were some things that Obama was saying that I was excited about. Of course, I naively thought that he might actually follow through on his promises. Oh me of too much faith.
Despite Obama's claim to reverse the ridiculous "don't ask, don't tell" policy instigated by the Clinton administration, he's pushing it off.
From his candidate website:
Add to that "more than 50" Lt. Dan Choi, who has been discharged for being gay. In a time where more and more people are ok with or just don't care that people in the military are gay, even openly gay, why do we still have this policy?
John Oliver has the answer.
Despite Obama's claim to reverse the ridiculous "don't ask, don't tell" policy instigated by the Clinton administration, he's pushing it off.
From his candidate website:
Barack Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
Add to that "more than 50" Lt. Dan Choi, who has been discharged for being gay. In a time where more and more people are ok with or just don't care that people in the military are gay, even openly gay, why do we still have this policy?
John Oliver has the answer.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Dan Choi Is Gay | ||||
| ||||
TSA: The natural enemy of the 4th Amendment
I don't really remember how airport security was before 9/11. I know we had to go through metal detectors. I know that our carry-on bags were x-rayed. But beyond that, I don't remember much more intrusion than the annoyance of long lines. And then 9/11 happened. And in the wake of the confusion and horror, the TSA rose as the unequivocal authority on airline safety. Originally under the Department of Transportation, the TSA was sucked into the black hole of the Department of Homeland Security shortly after the DHS's creation.
I think that the TSA is a perfect example of what would happen if government standardization trumped the free market. Prior to 9/11, aiport passenger screening was handled by private companies who were contracted by the owner of the terminal (airline or other private entity). Certainly there were bound to be screw-ups and misfires; we're only human after all. Once the government took over the show, the level of competence and the standard of "care" fell rapidly.
A few examples of mismanagement and general asshat-ery by the TSA: 1) spending $500 for cheese displays during an awards banquet in 2004, 2) selling the banned items left by passengers at airport checkpoints, 3) requiring a woman to remove her nipple piercings with pliers behind a flimsy curtain, and 4) playing an April Fools joke on an asthmatic passenger.
I think it's generally accepted that the TSA is a waste of tax-payers' money, has no reason existing, and should be demolished immediately. Well, at least I think so. The latest news in airport security is the potential implementation of full body scanners. These machines will allow highly trained and certified TSA screeners to see intimate details of passengers. Think Superman's x-ray vision. The machines are strong enough to see everyone's bits and pieces. At $170K they're very affordable.
The only fly in the ointment appears to be some opposition in the name of that pesky thing, privacy. Why are these scanners necessary? In an age where we know everything that terrorists are doing thanks our friendly neighborhood waterboarders, why are we still giving airline passengers the third degree?
I think that the TSA is a perfect example of what would happen if government standardization trumped the free market. Prior to 9/11, aiport passenger screening was handled by private companies who were contracted by the owner of the terminal (airline or other private entity). Certainly there were bound to be screw-ups and misfires; we're only human after all. Once the government took over the show, the level of competence and the standard of "care" fell rapidly.
A few examples of mismanagement and general asshat-ery by the TSA: 1) spending $500 for cheese displays during an awards banquet in 2004, 2) selling the banned items left by passengers at airport checkpoints, 3) requiring a woman to remove her nipple piercings with pliers behind a flimsy curtain, and 4) playing an April Fools joke on an asthmatic passenger.
I think it's generally accepted that the TSA is a waste of tax-payers' money, has no reason existing, and should be demolished immediately. Well, at least I think so. The latest news in airport security is the potential implementation of full body scanners. These machines will allow highly trained and certified TSA screeners to see intimate details of passengers. Think Superman's x-ray vision. The machines are strong enough to see everyone's bits and pieces. At $170K they're very affordable.
The only fly in the ointment appears to be some opposition in the name of that pesky thing, privacy. Why are these scanners necessary? In an age where we know everything that terrorists are doing thanks our friendly neighborhood waterboarders, why are we still giving airline passengers the third degree?
Wednesday, May 13
Whatever happened to transparency in government?
The long-awaited photos depicting detainee abuse from 2001-2006 during the course of the Iraq War may not be released at the end of the month. Obama wants his lawyers to object to their release.
Wait a minute- Obama thinks that pictures taken of potential prisoner abuse in the course of a war we shouldn't be involved in would be inflammatory? Really? That's some good thinking.
For a president who campaigned that he would change the cloak and dagger moves of the previous administration, he's doing a pretty good job of, well, not doing that.
"Last week, the president met with his legal team and told them that he did not feel comfortable with the release of the [Defense Department] photos because he believes their release would endanger our troops, and because he believes that the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented to the court. At the end of that meeting, the president directed his counsel to object to the immediate release of the photos on those grounds. ... [Obama] strongly believes that the release of these photos, particularly at this time, would only serve the purpose of inflaming the theaters of war, jeopardizing U.S. forces, and making our job more difficult in places like Iraq and Afghanistan."
Wait a minute- Obama thinks that pictures taken of potential prisoner abuse in the course of a war we shouldn't be involved in would be inflammatory? Really? That's some good thinking.
For a president who campaigned that he would change the cloak and dagger moves of the previous administration, he's doing a pretty good job of, well, not doing that.
Don't worry, Carrie- you're not alone
Carrie Prejean's impassioned speech at her recent press conference with Donald Trump brought up a disconcerting issue into the spotlight: Americans don't understand their Constitution. Prejean claimed to have exercised her freedom of speech, and when she did that, she was punished. Keith Olbermann had some commentary on that last night:
Though it is enjoyable to poke a little fun at Prejean for the preposterous situation she's in that continues to blow up, she is not alone in her misconceptions about what rights are guaranteed by our Constitution.
Back in 2006, the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum published a study about how well Americans know the Constitution. The results were not promising. Almost 20% believed that owning a pet was constitutionally protected, and 38% thought that the right against self-incrimination was guaranteed by the First Amendment.
A recent survey by Rasmussen Reports showed that only 75% of those asked thought that the Constitution protected a right to own a gun; 14% said that gun ownership was not protected, and 11% were not sure. Another survey by Rasmussen Reports showed that when asked about how the Constitution "in terms of how it impacts life in our country today," 63% thought it was good to excellent; 21% thought fair, and 12% thought poor.
So the lesson of today is that even when people think that the Constitution is doing ok for them, they really don't know what that means. And how can we expect people to be outraged by the injustices inherent in the system when they don't understand the system?
Though it is enjoyable to poke a little fun at Prejean for the preposterous situation she's in that continues to blow up, she is not alone in her misconceptions about what rights are guaranteed by our Constitution.
Back in 2006, the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum published a study about how well Americans know the Constitution. The results were not promising. Almost 20% believed that owning a pet was constitutionally protected, and 38% thought that the right against self-incrimination was guaranteed by the First Amendment.
A recent survey by Rasmussen Reports showed that only 75% of those asked thought that the Constitution protected a right to own a gun; 14% said that gun ownership was not protected, and 11% were not sure. Another survey by Rasmussen Reports showed that when asked about how the Constitution "in terms of how it impacts life in our country today," 63% thought it was good to excellent; 21% thought fair, and 12% thought poor.
So the lesson of today is that even when people think that the Constitution is doing ok for them, they really don't know what that means. And how can we expect people to be outraged by the injustices inherent in the system when they don't understand the system?
Thursday, May 7
ED ads: Begone!
Once upon a time, parents were involved in their children's lives, and monitored what they watched on tv or listened to on the radio. Parents decided for themselves what was objectionable content for their own children, and limited their children's exposure to such content.
But now, in an age where the government raises our children, parents don't need to worry about objectionable content. Last month, Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) introduced H.R. 2175 to Congress and it now sits in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Moran's inspiration for H.R. 2175, or the "Families for ED Advertising Decency Act," is his concern over his grandkids seeing commercials for ED medications like Viagra and Levitra. So, he wants to be able to limit ED ads to only airtime between 10pm and 6am.
I'm not that big of a fan of watching old guys smile and crook their fingers at their female partners who are apparently ecstatic that their men have taken a pill that makes them available for sexual activity for 36 hours at time. (Though I do admit to always being amused at the 4-hour erection disclaimers. Would you really wait 4 hours?) But when I see something on tv that I don't like, or that I don't want to see, I change the channel, or don't pay attention to it. I don't call the FCC.
Moran claims to have some perspective on his bill:
At the heart of the issue is censorship- a group of people deciding what a larger group of people can see or hear. H.R. 2175 is going to take away citizens' rights to decide for themselves if ED ads are too obscene for viewing between 6am and 10pm. What's going to be next? Will birth control ads be restricted as well? What about STI medications? Where does it end?
But now, in an age where the government raises our children, parents don't need to worry about objectionable content. Last month, Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) introduced H.R. 2175 to Congress and it now sits in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Moran's inspiration for H.R. 2175, or the "Families for ED Advertising Decency Act," is his concern over his grandkids seeing commercials for ED medications like Viagra and Levitra. So, he wants to be able to limit ED ads to only airtime between 10pm and 6am.
I'm not that big of a fan of watching old guys smile and crook their fingers at their female partners who are apparently ecstatic that their men have taken a pill that makes them available for sexual activity for 36 hours at time. (Though I do admit to always being amused at the 4-hour erection disclaimers. Would you really wait 4 hours?) But when I see something on tv that I don't like, or that I don't want to see, I change the channel, or don't pay attention to it. I don't call the FCC.
Moran claims to have some perspective on his bill:
"While it’s not as important as the economy, or what’s happening militarily around the world, it is an intrusion into the quality of life that we like to experience."I do agree that ED ads are not as important as a recession, or an unwinnable war we shouldn't be involved in. But the issue isn't really about ED ads. The Families for ED Advertising Decency Act" wants to have the FCC consider ED ads obscene and modify its existing code.
Within 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall revise the Commission's interpretations of, and enforcement policies concerning, section 73.3999 of the Commission's regulations (47 CFR 73.3999), relating to indecent material that no licensee of a radio or television broadcast station shall broadcast on any day between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., to treat as indecent for such purposes any advertisement for a medication for the treatment of erectile dysfunction or for male enhancement. This section shall not require treating as indecent any product placement or other display or mention merely of the trademarked name or generic name for such a medication.
At the heart of the issue is censorship- a group of people deciding what a larger group of people can see or hear. H.R. 2175 is going to take away citizens' rights to decide for themselves if ED ads are too obscene for viewing between 6am and 10pm. What's going to be next? Will birth control ads be restricted as well? What about STI medications? Where does it end?
Wednesday, May 6
Another victory for equal rights
Maine has followed Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Connecticut in recognizing all citizens' rights to marry.
Earlier today, Maine's legislature approved a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, and less than an hour later, Governor Baldacci signed it.
I am personally overjoyed at this news for a variety of reasons. But the biggest reason that it's so exciting is that finally citizens are starting to realize that equality really is for everyone. I continue to be confused by opponents of same-sex marriage who protest on the basis of religious rights.
First of all, making marriage an equal right for all does not lessen the "importance" of marriage for other people. Most of the same-sex marriage legislation does not give special dispensation for gay citizens; it just doesn't define marriage between a man and a woman. Straight married couples' rights do not disappear with the creation of equal rights for all.
Second of all, the government is not forcing churches to perform ceremonies for gay couples. There already are churches that perform committment ceremonies for couples who cannot be legally married. Nowhere in any legislation is there an attack on any church or religion.
Third of all, why do people keep contending that the government should "protect marriage?" Where in the Constitution is that obligation enumerated? It's not the government's job to protect the "sanctitity" of a religious ceremony or institution. That's sort of what the free exercise and establishment clauses in the First Amendment are about.
I have more snarky comments, like how straight couples should take a look at the divorce rate before talking about the sanctity of marriage. But the bottom line is really, same-sex legislation to me is a lot like hate crimes legislation. Do I think that the government should have any involvement? Absolutely not. But until all people really are treated equally, we need some reminders of TJ's words.
Earlier today, Maine's legislature approved a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, and less than an hour later, Governor Baldacci signed it.
"I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage."New Hampshire is next in New England to vote on a bill for marriage equality today, though it no news yet. A similar bill has already been introduced in Rhode Island, but is not expected to pass this year. The DC city council has passed a preliminary measure to recognize same-sex unions performed in other states.
I am personally overjoyed at this news for a variety of reasons. But the biggest reason that it's so exciting is that finally citizens are starting to realize that equality really is for everyone. I continue to be confused by opponents of same-sex marriage who protest on the basis of religious rights.
First of all, making marriage an equal right for all does not lessen the "importance" of marriage for other people. Most of the same-sex marriage legislation does not give special dispensation for gay citizens; it just doesn't define marriage between a man and a woman. Straight married couples' rights do not disappear with the creation of equal rights for all.
Second of all, the government is not forcing churches to perform ceremonies for gay couples. There already are churches that perform committment ceremonies for couples who cannot be legally married. Nowhere in any legislation is there an attack on any church or religion.
Third of all, why do people keep contending that the government should "protect marriage?" Where in the Constitution is that obligation enumerated? It's not the government's job to protect the "sanctitity" of a religious ceremony or institution. That's sort of what the free exercise and establishment clauses in the First Amendment are about.
I have more snarky comments, like how straight couples should take a look at the divorce rate before talking about the sanctity of marriage. But the bottom line is really, same-sex legislation to me is a lot like hate crimes legislation. Do I think that the government should have any involvement? Absolutely not. But until all people really are treated equally, we need some reminders of TJ's words.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
Saturday, May 2
Why Arlen Specter matters
Stephen Gordon did a wonderful job of summing up the reactions to Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic Party this week. There's been a lot of talk about the Pennsylvanian Senator's change of heart, and rightfully so. He was a Republican for 43 years until April 28, when he declared that he would become a Democrat.
With most of the politicos and bloggers saying, "good riddance," one might wonder, "what's the big deal? So some old coot in Pennsylvania is switching teams- what difference does it make?"
Well, my friends, it makes a difference. It all has to do with cloture. And filibustering. And possibly other silly-sounding, but official words.
Since the average American doesn't understand much about his government, a brief explanation of Senate rules:
Occasionally, when a bill makes it onto the floor, and through committee, the Senate will vote on it. (See below.)
If a bill is particularly contentious, a Senator or group of Senators may feel the desire to stop its progress. The Constitution doesn't limit the Senate (or the House) to a specific amount of time when debating whether or not a bill should become law. (I think the idea was that the Senators and Congressmen would take their job seriously and not rush into passing laws that should never have been passed. Good idea.) Unfortunately, this means that to keep a bill from being passed, any Senator can filibuster. Filibustering is talking, sometimes about nothing, to prevent the group from voting on the prospective bill. In an effort to stop a certain piece of legislation from going through, a Senator can effectively talk about anything- what he ate that morning, the entire plotline of Lost, etc. That's good news for him, but bad news for everyone else, particularly those who are trying to pass the bill.
And then Senate Rule 22 was born: cloture. President Wilson thought it would be a good idea for there to be some limits on how long Senators could filibuster. With Rule 22 in place, a filibuster can be overruled by a supermajority of Senators. In a full chamber, that means 60.
And here we come to the crux of Specter's importance. There are currently 40 Republican Senators, and now, with Specter's defection, 59 Senators who vote Democrat. There is one contested seat in Minnesota. If Al Franken wins the seat against Norm Coleman, and it's looking as though things may go that way, then the Democrats will hold 60 seats, and maintain a supermajority over the Republicans.
What that means is that virtually any measures proposed by the Dems will go through, and the GOP will have no chance of stopping them. Ordinarily this would not be such a big problem, but with socialist measures such as the stimulus package getting passed, and Obama signing them all into law, things are looking bleaker and bleaker.
With most of the politicos and bloggers saying, "good riddance," one might wonder, "what's the big deal? So some old coot in Pennsylvania is switching teams- what difference does it make?"
Well, my friends, it makes a difference. It all has to do with cloture. And filibustering. And possibly other silly-sounding, but official words.
Since the average American doesn't understand much about his government, a brief explanation of Senate rules:
Occasionally, when a bill makes it onto the floor, and through committee, the Senate will vote on it. (See below.)
If a bill is particularly contentious, a Senator or group of Senators may feel the desire to stop its progress. The Constitution doesn't limit the Senate (or the House) to a specific amount of time when debating whether or not a bill should become law. (I think the idea was that the Senators and Congressmen would take their job seriously and not rush into passing laws that should never have been passed. Good idea.) Unfortunately, this means that to keep a bill from being passed, any Senator can filibuster. Filibustering is talking, sometimes about nothing, to prevent the group from voting on the prospective bill. In an effort to stop a certain piece of legislation from going through, a Senator can effectively talk about anything- what he ate that morning, the entire plotline of Lost, etc. That's good news for him, but bad news for everyone else, particularly those who are trying to pass the bill.
And then Senate Rule 22 was born: cloture. President Wilson thought it would be a good idea for there to be some limits on how long Senators could filibuster. With Rule 22 in place, a filibuster can be overruled by a supermajority of Senators. In a full chamber, that means 60.
And here we come to the crux of Specter's importance. There are currently 40 Republican Senators, and now, with Specter's defection, 59 Senators who vote Democrat. There is one contested seat in Minnesota. If Al Franken wins the seat against Norm Coleman, and it's looking as though things may go that way, then the Democrats will hold 60 seats, and maintain a supermajority over the Republicans.
What that means is that virtually any measures proposed by the Dems will go through, and the GOP will have no chance of stopping them. Ordinarily this would not be such a big problem, but with socialist measures such as the stimulus package getting passed, and Obama signing them all into law, things are looking bleaker and bleaker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)