Politics '11: Keeping up with the Xornses

[Dunefar]

Post here for all your political posting needs! Try and not kill each other, please.

[Dunefar]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/01/01/pakistan.suicide.bomb/index.html

Pakistan continues to be a messy shithole.

[Taishyr]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/us/05bar.html?hp

Huhm.

[NotMiki]

“Law students who take first-year criminal law from 2010 on,” he said, “will learn that this same group of smart lawyers and judges — the ones whose work they read every day — has said that the death penalty in the United States is a moral and practical failure.”

That's me next semester, so should be interesting.  But really, even though the ALI is a huge deal, that the death penalty in the US is a practical failure, and a moral failure at the very least because of some of those practical failures, is not exactly news.

[Dunefar]

Do you think this will have any immediate impact? This feels more like a mid-long range effect but nothing that's going to change the landscape in five years.

[NotMiki]

The latter.  The ALI is a very important institute in America, and they occasionally put out restatements of law, which are codifications of judge-made rules.  The restatements ostensibly state rules that already exist in common law and promote clarity and uniformity of law by providing a source that says, essentially, where American law stands on an issue.  These restatements aren't binding by themselves, but they're frequently adopted as law.  There is rarely a perfect consensus of where American case law stands on an issue.  Where the ALI says American law stands is very persuasive to the legal community.  But they only publish restatements at most once every 30 years or so.  They started in the 20s, and we're still on the 2nd restatement of contracts and the 3rd of torts (which is hot off the presses).

[SnowFire]

Also in the news, since I recall this being debated here before: Gay marriage in New Jersey goes down in flames, only getting 14/40 votes in the Senate.  This is not too long after gay marriage failed by a lot more than expected in the NY State Senate, too.  WTF?  How hard can it be to go around and ask everyone how they'd vote BEFORE putting the measure up?  The NJ measure was kind of shady anyway - pass the bill in the lame duck session before Governor-elect Christie could take office - so now the Dems eat the "tried to pull a parliamentary fast one" penalty AND, worse, they failed at it.  A 22-18 defeat wouldn't be so bad, but 26-14 is fairly lopsided.

Well, don't expect gay marriage in NJ for at least 5 years.  On the bright side this is not a huge practical difference, as my understanding is that NJ civil unions are pretty enlightened.

[NotMiki]

How hard can it be to go around and ask everyone how they'd vote BEFORE putting the measure up?

The short answer is, senators won't tell you, or they will lie, because of politics.  Two things went on in NY, and presumably NJ is about the same, neither of which you will like.  First of all, there are a bunch of senators who are willing to vote for it BUT will only vote for it if you already have enough votes for it; they see it as politically damaging, and although they want it to pass, they're not willing to go out on a limb unless they have safety in numbers.  Second, some Republicans who said they were going to vote for it lied then voted against it, to prevent NY democrats from having a legislative victory.  Yes, those people are scumbag shitheads.  Welcome to politics.

EDIT: I feel the need to point out that the NY senate is considered by many to be one of the most corrupt legislatures in the country (nothing wrong with the house, though, and they passed gay marriage a number of times by a healthy margin).  I don't think we need to rehash the events of last year to explain why.  I assume what happened in NJ is about the same.

[SnowFire]

Actually I don't blame the Republicans in NY at all.  They said they'd vote *if* the Democrats mustered sufficient votes that the legislation would pass thanks to the added Republican votes.  The Democrats did an awful job of mustering their own votes, so the Republicans who were on the fence all decided to defend against possible R primary pressure since it's not like their vote "mattered" anyway.  Now, maybe some were in fact never really going to vote that way, but in the NY case the Democrats delivered even less than what they claimed to be the worst case scenario, and not even close to enough Dems to pass the bill with the ~3-4 wavering Republicans.  So yeah, I'd rather the wavering Republicans not get primaried out if in fact they're a reliable vote for actually passing the bill should it come to that.

And yes, the NY legislature - all of it - is incredibly dysfunctional and corrupt.  Even worse the NY legislature usurped a lot of power from NYC back in the late 70s when the city government was both awful and in bad shape...  and never gave it back.  This is why, say, Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan failed - for no good reason it required the approval of the NY Legislature as well rather than it merely being a city matter.  (The at-the-time Republicans in the Senate passed it, too!  It was my own Rep, Speaker Sheldon Silver who basically has all the power of the House, that killed that one because he wasn't paid off enough.)

The NJ case I don't know what the heck happened, but after the debacle in NY you'd think that the leadership would have made darn certain they had their ducks in a row before proceeding to the floor.  The Dems have a 23-17 majority there so uh what.

[NotMiki]

A friend of mine who works with NY Dem assemblymen told me explicitly that certain Republican representatives outright lied about their votes.  Take that as you will.

[NotMiki]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/arts/design/17abroad.html?pagewanted=1

A nice piece on the artist behind the Switzerland anti-minaret poster.  Includes a little perspective on why poster propaganda is effective in Europe.  Good read if you're interested in the Switzerland thing in particular or propaganda in general.

(Pretty good example of how to express utter contempt for your subject in what is not ostensibly an opinion piece, too.)

[SnowFire]

http://nymag.com/news/politics/63045/

Expose on the fall of the Edwards campaign, aka "thank you National Enquirer for helping make sure Edwards was defeated in the primary and didn't hand the Republicans an easy piñata in the general."  Since frankly this entire affair was messed up enough to definitely disqualify Edwards from positions of trust.  Classic King Lear case of *both* John & Elizabeth Edwards distrusting the loyal advisers who told them the truth while trusting the wrong people (like Hunter).  And oddly enough treating loyal staff like trash can make them disloyal staff after all, a nice self-fulfilling prophecy.

[superaielman]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2010/01/dems_cast_blame_at_each_other_over_senate_campaign.php

Coakley loses the special election in Mass, the long knives come out.

[SnowFire]

Martha Choakley indeed.  WTF, from media reports she didn't run that bad of a *primary* campaign.  But yeah rather than running a straight-up policy blitz in a state where the Democrat will win her campaign is attacking Brown for being a hunk who got work posing nude at 22.   Riiiight.  Allegedly Coakley was too precious to do direct campaigning as well and just shook hands with bigwigs rather than go out to rallies.  Yeah, it's too bad if the Republicans keep playing obstructionist, but I can't feel too sorry about this.  The Gerard Amirault case ( http://www.theweek.com/bullpen/column/101834/Daycare_sex_abuse_case_haunts_Massachusetts_Senate_race has one summary) doesn't help her case for being a person of strong moral character anyway, she took the wimpy tough-on-crime, I might have a political future way out rather than show any courage.

I wish Brown good luck in trying to hold the seat while keeping both national Republicans and Massachusetts Republicans happy, though.  Should be an exciting balancing act.

[metroid composite]

I'm not that worried about healthcare.  If Democrats don't reform it, Republicans will need to; the current system is just that retarded causing money hemoraging in places it clearly doesn't need to hemorage.

I'm really worried about Employment Nondiscrimination, however.  It looks like it's going to remain perfectly legal and accepted to fire someone for being gay (in 29 states) or trans (in 38 states).



What I'm also troubled by right now is American politics.  Republicans published a completely public memo saying they were going to waste as much time as possible in the senate to keep things from getting done.  The political theory being that if the Democrats failed to accomplish much, they would lose popularity.  I'm not bothered that Republicans took this tactic, but I AM bothered that it worked--the political support for the democrats DID erode, and Republicans are expected to gain a lot of seats in 2010.  This is really troubling--if the best way to get elected is to never cooperate and deliberately waste as much time as possible, politicians are going to do that.  It's in their own self interest.  Which means we're encouraging politicians to do nothing and waste time.

Fuck the American Senate.  It needs to be abolished.

[Shale]

The entire handling of Ted Kennedy's illness was a clusterfuck from day one (he's terminally ill and can no longer even attend sessions to vote...yeah, who needs to line up a successor? That's silly.). The Democrats reaped what they sowed on this one, and hopefully it ends with Harry Reid flipping burgers in Reno.

[Cmdr_King]

If Democrats don't reform it, Republicans will need to; the current system is just that retarded causing money hemoraging in places it clearly doesn't need to hemorage.

Unlikely, at least not until they can get a majority plus the white house.  Any republican bill is likely to be insurance-oriented, and I don't foresee a democratic government passing such.

the political support for the democrats DID erode, and Republicans are expected to gain a lot of seats in 2010.

Well, you have to remember, the republicans have much stronger propaganda machines.
Less cynically, there's also the issue that 2008 was something of a fluke- Democrats improved so much because a lot of young voters, who typically ignore politics entirely, showed up.  I doubt they'll show up for much afterwords.

[metroid composite]

Less cynically, there's also the issue that 2008 was something of a fluke- Democrats improved so much because a lot of young voters, who typically ignore politics entirely, showed up.  I doubt they'll show up for much afterwords.

Err...what?  During 2008 what I consistently heard was that the number of registered Republicans was shrinking.  Both sides in the election were condemned the Bush presidency, not just democrats.  It was a generally low point of Republican popularity, not just among young voters.

[Cmdr_King]

*shrug* I can only speak from my own experience but... generally speaking, once you go over about 30 demographically, even 'swing' voters lean strongly conservative.  They'll just vote democrat from time to time out of frustration.

Not scientific or researched.  Just based on listening to people around me.

[SnowFire]

Pelosi says that she doesn't have the votes to pass the Senate's version of health care.  W.  T.  F.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012101604.html?hpid=topnews
If they're such a big problem, pass another amendment later.  Unfortunately, by (rather reasonably) assuming they had 60 votes, the Dems have made it *very* hard to step back and get, say, Snowe's vote on health care now.  And if Brown voted for it he'd immediately be seen as a traitor by the national Republican party.  So that leaves "nothing" or "reconciliation."  Reconciliation, i.e. making it part of the budget bill and passing it with 50 votes, is incredibly dangerous since A) it looks bad and B) the bill would expire after 5 years, when many of health care reform's benefits are very long-term.  It's not good policy to pass this just for a short term and then possibly chaotically revert the system later.

Which leaves the best option as being PASS THE FREAKIN' BILL.  It's really flawed and has optimistic projections etc. but it would be political AND policy suicide to do nothing.  Not passing the bill would "prove" it was wrong all along and a near missed disaster; only thing to do is pass it and find out.

Also, disagree with metroid that the Republicans are likely to help health care pass.  The US government is designed to encourage a certain amount of gridlock and stasis under the theory that only the best legislation gets through.  The easiest thing to happen is nothing if nobody can agree.  Even if we grant that the Republicans would want to do *something* about health care, brinksmanship on both sides would mean that nothing is likelier to pass than one or the other side's plan.

Also in the bad news for liberals this week: Supreme Court overturns campaign finance restrictions after all, undoing their work from just 2003.  Sigh.  Anthony Kennedy, philosopher-king of America, strikes again.  I'll grant that he's actually *right* by the letter of the Constitution, but...  ugh.  This whole thing's a mess.  Much as I like campaign finance reform, I'd be scared of a constitutional amendment to explicitly allow it under the theory it could be used to make fully state-regulated campaigns, which would also be a bad thing.  What we had before was the best compromise, and now it's gone.  Siiiiiigh.

[metroid composite]

Also in the bad news for liberals this week: Supreme Court overturns campaign finance restrictions after all, undoing their work from just 2003.  Sigh.  Anthony Kennedy, philosopher-king of America, strikes again.  I'll grant that he's actually *right* by the letter of the Constitution, but...  ugh.  This whole thing's a mess.  Much as I like campaign finance reform, I'd be scared of a constitutional amendment to explicitly allow it under the theory it could be used to make fully state-regulated campaigns, which would also be a bad thing.  What we had before was the best compromise, and now it's gone.  Siiiiiigh.

Oh crap.  Quick article link on this one...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/supreme-court-rolls-back_n_431227.html


Anyhow, in response...fully state-regulated campaigns aren't that bad--you get X amount of dollars for advertising, and so does your opponent.  You can't fund like...the yoga party or whatever, but you base funding on the most popular two or three parties in the region.  It now needs to come out of taxation, but if every company feels like it has to buy itself protection that's essentially a corporate tax as well.

My concern is more that we're not going to get to the point of constitutional amendment.  Republicans are already getting funding from corporations that serve to gain the most (like tobacco, which stands to gain a crapload if regulations are lifted) and as seen in the article, Republicans are already generally supportive of the supreme court judgment.  It seems likely that they'll block a constitutional amendment (since if they "do the right thing" and the old system stays, then they stand to lose most of their campaign contributions).  So...this decision doesn't seem likely to go down any time soon.  Problem is...two or three elections from now, the house/senate may have a lot of politicians in office because of the new system, which would make it a lot harder to overturn.

[NotMiki]

Beyond reinforcement of the canard that corporations are people for purposes of the first amendment (born, disingenuously it seems to me, out of the other, completely reasonable ways the law treats corporations as people, for example for determining jurisdiction) this is something to keep an eye on:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/01/initial-take-on-citizens-united.html

In my view, the real significance of the case lies in what the Court said Congress can do going forward. The Court severely limited both the arguments and the types of evidence Congress can invoke when it regulates in the future. In doing so, it overruled other precedent without saying so....The real hope for future campaign-finance reform turned...on what constitutes corruption and what evidence Congress can gather to show it exists. The Court has now cut back substantially on both fronts.

mc: elected judges may just as important in the long run in terms of (further) corruption of the political process.

[metroid composite]

mc: elected judges may just as important in the long run in terms of (further) corruption of the political process.

Oh right: elected judges.  I had momentarily forgotten about that particular broken aspect of American politics. -_-

[NotMiki]

Some more thoughts on the SC campaign finance case

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=01&year=2010&base_name=some_initial_thoughts_on_citiz

The central line of argument in Justice Kennedy's majority opinion -- that the First Amendment does not permit distinctions based on the identity of the speaker -- is superficially attractive. The problem is, there's no reason to believe that any of the justices believe it. In addition to the examples in Justice Stevens' superb dissent, consider Morse v. Frederick, a decision denying a free speech claim which all 5 of the justices in today's majority also joined. Obviously. Nobody would dispute that an ordinary citizen who unfurled a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner could be sanctioned by the state; the punishment was upheld solely based on Frederick's identity as a student, which meant that his free speech rights had to be balanced against a school's interest in preventing drug use (and could be denied even if there was no plausible argument that his speech actually would promote drug use). If this kind of balancing test is permissible, surely Congress should be permitted to place some weight on the importance of fair elections when considering the First Amendment rights of for-profit corporations.

There's that.

More important to me, as I already mentioned, is the "corporate personhood" debate.  There is longstanding, though controversial, precedent corporations are persons for purposes of the 14th amendment.  In federal law (the law congress writes) "person" means human being or corporation unless otherwise stated.  But neither of those means that when the first amendment as written was meant to apply to corporations.  It seems extremely unlikely to me that that was the case.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/01/analysis-the-personhood-of-corporations/

EDIT:

http://volokh.com/2010/01/21/people-organized-as-corporations-are-people-too/

For a dumb argument why the liberal side of the court is making an opinion inconsistent with their 1st amendment track record, read this.

Basically:
1st amendment freedom of the press protections apply to corporations in the news business exactly the same as if they were individuals in the news business.  If corporations get the same rights as people for freedom of the press, it would be inconsistent not to grant corporations those same rights for all first amendment issues. (Man, I summarized this so clearly it sounds like it makes sense.  Don't worry, though.  It doesn't.)

As I see it, media corporations are treated as people because the rights of the people making up that corporation to disseminate news will be abridged if they don't.  While people are part of a media corporation, if that corporations' press freedoms are limited, the peoples' are limited as well.  The rights to political speech of the individuals making up a corporation, on the other hand, are not hurt at all, as far as I know.  Nothing prevents them from donating to political causes as individuals in exactly the same way they would be able to otherwise.

EDIT2:  Goddammit supreme court, stop making stupid decisions so I can stop staying up too late writing about them.

[Taishyr]

So the corporations are being counted more and more as people?

I'll consider this fair when a corporation can be tried and executed for treason for its business dealings.

(In a far more serious vein, this is headdesk worthy and I'm just gonna keep looking for places to move outside the US. You guys have fun with this.)