And Also: After sweeping the Indians, the Mets were swept by the Braves and Cubs (#2 Wild Card leader, now over them by five). They followed up with a pitching duel vs. the Phillies ace that was broke by ten runs in the last two innings. Losing streak over and Mets fans (with five more games vs. them and later on ten vs. scrubs) can continue to believe. I'm a tad tired of it all myself. I'd add that it being September is a bit amazing. Time flies.
Both sides do it alert.
[Leading with that and tossing in that they stand out among other senators in that category (and as to trustworthiness) is also petty. Inclined to substantively respond, even when just letting some things be, I cannot say that the adjective is totally off the mark. At least three of the five* are known to be outspoken and ideological -- they are politicians -- but even on that front, that particular word is crude. But, the person is a conservative who even given the current leadership apparently simply cannot accept that there is actually a time for such things. So it goes.]
The amicus brief involves a quirky New York gun regulation that seems like a prime way -- after Kennedy -- for the Supreme Court to come back to the Second Amendment. Just what SCOTUS will do with the law is unclear and it is even possible Breyer/Kagan would find a way to negotiate some sensible compromise. But, the state changed the law (loosening the restrictions) and the whole thing seems moot. As the brief notes, as a matter of law -- even granting there is no true "neutrality" here -- keeping this case active is dubious. It looks and is an ideological effort. This is "honest" and to the limited degree this sort of amicus brief can be useful, nothing is wrong with it even if some sacred cow is targeted too.
The "brutal" part is not only the visceral nature of the attack on the NRA here, but the "friendly audience" business. The discussion of the Federalist Society's involvement in the judicial nomination process itself is a sort of subtweet (well the Kavanaugh confirmation fight is directly cited) to multiple members on the Court. Then, there is talk of "bare partisan majorities" (the professor linked rather us talk about "values" but there does seem to be overlap here) and a direct rejection of Roberts' talk of "balls and strikes." Noting this comes off as a bit personal, what part is untrue? The gaming of litigation isn't present on one side, but one side does control the Supreme Court at this moment. (The brief cites Roberts' dissent in the same sex marriage case accusing the majority of not resting on the law.)
And, every single Republican senator, led by the Majority Leader of the Senate (fourth in line to the presidency, leader of the effort to secure the conservatives' fifth vote) did just that. They signed a letter to the Supreme Court, discussed/linked here, in response to the brief. It spoke of "several of our Democratic colleagues" (that would be five) and how they "openly threatened" to pack the Court. How they would manage this is unclear. The letter speaks of threats to judicial independence but then the amicus brief had the same message. It warned of how ideology over law was ruling the day. The party that left the Court with eight members for over a year preaching this message is a bit rich.
The letter is repeatedly blatantly partisan. "Democrats" are the target. They "peddle" things though it is not "mere pandering" but a direct immediate threat. Republicans should know about true threats here. Their concern about "opportunistic politicians" here is again rich. Sen. Whitehouse et. al. are addressing general concerns that are not just concerned about the moment or winning political campaigns. And, the net message is fairly similar the other way. If the Supreme Court actually does declare the matter moot (though they insist they are not taking a position), the message would be that they are giving in to threats. As to Republicans not supporting packing the Supreme Court later on, sure. They already did.
[The letter responds to an amicus signed on by five Democrats in a way that provides a general attack on Democrats in general, including those running for POTUS. The amicus is tied to a specific case. The more general statements by people like Buttigieg are not. They are general policy proposals which are in the bailiwick of the political branches. A basic blatantly partisan statement addressed specifically to the Supreme Court on such a subject is rather dubious. It goes a step past a flourish tied to a specific case that arguably should be declared moot because the only reason for it not to be seems to be as some sort of special interest issue vehicle or at least the concern that is the appearance of the matter.]
Every single Republican signing such a letter, even if you think the amicus of five senators went too far, is not "both sides do it" material. It is blatant partisan activity. Five senators, with a lot of instigation, to me were right to sign that brief. I'm not going to take the vapors. Even here, no need for smelling salts. But, it definitely is rather blatant and worthy of special note. It is rather hard to take given what they did as well. Again, the justices might not care though one or more might care somewhat. Realistically, this level of battle has some consequence.
Anyways, both sides (or "the Senate") do it is b.s. One side is a lot worse. Prime example.
---
* After being unable to get into the third debate (other than Tulsi Gabbard and a bunch of white guy also rans, it looks like mostly everyone will), Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand gave in to reality and suspended her presidential campaign. This is a bit sad but not too surprising. Her campaign thinks the whole Franken thing (a bs thing that a loud few continue to whine about online etc.) was a major reason here and some are inclined to agree.
As I and others note in comments to such threads, it seems more a matter of her not being able to find a place is a crowded field, one with multiple women (women's rights is a basic concern of hers) and Biden (if he wasn't in the race, there would be let's say more pie, including perhaps for an established pol who made being anti-Trump a key part of her campaign while still arguing she has the ability to work across party lines).
She has an "insider" taint to her that probably hurt, including a few moves (such as tempered response to an attack on Rep. Omar) that bothered the few who were paying attention. KG had a bit of pol vibe, fair or not. Early on, especially given her anti-Trump record and some feminist bona fides, I was a big fan. I saw her kick-off in NYC in person. But, with Warren and Harris (to me Klobuchar is a reasonable option but few seem to be interested) and her not getting much traction, I basically moved on.
Both sides do it alert.
Social media pundits, constitutional law professors, mainstream journalists, and conservative politicians are all agog about a brutally honest amicus brief filed in a Second Amendment case by Democratic Senators Whitehouse, Hirono, Blumenthal, Durbin and Gillibrand. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham called the brief "an extraordinary threat from one branch of government to another."I think Prof. Segall (who is a nice guy and I engage with him on Twitter too) goes somewhat too far with his takes but his general one here to me is basically on point. A sort of Never Trump type with my first name is all concerned in comments and I respond too. The focus on the so-called "demagogue" nature of the signatories is particularly tiresome. First, Sen. Whitehouse (the counsel of record) is simply not one. It is unfair to provide that label in respect to his long record speaking out against dark money in ideological battles in judiciary nominations and so forth.
[Leading with that and tossing in that they stand out among other senators in that category (and as to trustworthiness) is also petty. Inclined to substantively respond, even when just letting some things be, I cannot say that the adjective is totally off the mark. At least three of the five* are known to be outspoken and ideological -- they are politicians -- but even on that front, that particular word is crude. But, the person is a conservative who even given the current leadership apparently simply cannot accept that there is actually a time for such things. So it goes.]
The amicus brief involves a quirky New York gun regulation that seems like a prime way -- after Kennedy -- for the Supreme Court to come back to the Second Amendment. Just what SCOTUS will do with the law is unclear and it is even possible Breyer/Kagan would find a way to negotiate some sensible compromise. But, the state changed the law (loosening the restrictions) and the whole thing seems moot. As the brief notes, as a matter of law -- even granting there is no true "neutrality" here -- keeping this case active is dubious. It looks and is an ideological effort. This is "honest" and to the limited degree this sort of amicus brief can be useful, nothing is wrong with it even if some sacred cow is targeted too.
Out in the real world, Americans are murdered each day with firearms in classrooms or movie theaters or churches or city streets, and a generation of preschoolers is being trained in active-shooter survival drills. In the cloistered confines of this Court, and notwithstanding the public imperatives of these massacres, the NRA and its allies brashly presume, in word and deed, that they have a friendly audience for their “project."If one does the work, one can probably find other amicus briefs signed by at least a few (only five here though four do serve on the Judiciary Committee) that particularly target some ideological interest group. [The "work" part often comes to mind. This brief has received significant attention. Did anyone provide examples of other briefs that members of Congress signed to those not aware that they regularly sign amicus briefs? Put aside some that at least a handful signed that has more bite? I repeatedly have such questions. Discussions tend to be incomplete.]
The "brutal" part is not only the visceral nature of the attack on the NRA here, but the "friendly audience" business. The discussion of the Federalist Society's involvement in the judicial nomination process itself is a sort of subtweet (well the Kavanaugh confirmation fight is directly cited) to multiple members on the Court. Then, there is talk of "bare partisan majorities" (the professor linked rather us talk about "values" but there does seem to be overlap here) and a direct rejection of Roberts' talk of "balls and strikes." Noting this comes off as a bit personal, what part is untrue? The gaming of litigation isn't present on one side, but one side does control the Supreme Court at this moment. (The brief cites Roberts' dissent in the same sex marriage case accusing the majority of not resting on the law.)
The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.” Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.The brief quotes public polling to show that a majority of the public now thinks the courts are too influenced by politics and should be "restructured" to address that. The brief ends on that note to emphasize that still hearing this specific case would send a horrible message. But, it also underlines for some how blatantly the senators are "threatening" the Supreme Court. As the professor notes, it is unclear how scared they are that five senators wrote an amicus brief. It is unclear how much even a majority of the Senate doing so would affect them. OTOH, that would be a lot more notable than five members of the minority party, including an also ran POTUS candidate.
And, every single Republican senator, led by the Majority Leader of the Senate (fourth in line to the presidency, leader of the effort to secure the conservatives' fifth vote) did just that. They signed a letter to the Supreme Court, discussed/linked here, in response to the brief. It spoke of "several of our Democratic colleagues" (that would be five) and how they "openly threatened" to pack the Court. How they would manage this is unclear. The letter speaks of threats to judicial independence but then the amicus brief had the same message. It warned of how ideology over law was ruling the day. The party that left the Court with eight members for over a year preaching this message is a bit rich.
The letter is repeatedly blatantly partisan. "Democrats" are the target. They "peddle" things though it is not "mere pandering" but a direct immediate threat. Republicans should know about true threats here. Their concern about "opportunistic politicians" here is again rich. Sen. Whitehouse et. al. are addressing general concerns that are not just concerned about the moment or winning political campaigns. And, the net message is fairly similar the other way. If the Supreme Court actually does declare the matter moot (though they insist they are not taking a position), the message would be that they are giving in to threats. As to Republicans not supporting packing the Supreme Court later on, sure. They already did.
[The letter responds to an amicus signed on by five Democrats in a way that provides a general attack on Democrats in general, including those running for POTUS. The amicus is tied to a specific case. The more general statements by people like Buttigieg are not. They are general policy proposals which are in the bailiwick of the political branches. A basic blatantly partisan statement addressed specifically to the Supreme Court on such a subject is rather dubious. It goes a step past a flourish tied to a specific case that arguably should be declared moot because the only reason for it not to be seems to be as some sort of special interest issue vehicle or at least the concern that is the appearance of the matter.]
Every single Republican signing such a letter, even if you think the amicus of five senators went too far, is not "both sides do it" material. It is blatant partisan activity. Five senators, with a lot of instigation, to me were right to sign that brief. I'm not going to take the vapors. Even here, no need for smelling salts. But, it definitely is rather blatant and worthy of special note. It is rather hard to take given what they did as well. Again, the justices might not care though one or more might care somewhat. Realistically, this level of battle has some consequence.
Anyways, both sides (or "the Senate") do it is b.s. One side is a lot worse. Prime example.
---
* After being unable to get into the third debate (other than Tulsi Gabbard and a bunch of white guy also rans, it looks like mostly everyone will), Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand gave in to reality and suspended her presidential campaign. This is a bit sad but not too surprising. Her campaign thinks the whole Franken thing (a bs thing that a loud few continue to whine about online etc.) was a major reason here and some are inclined to agree.
As I and others note in comments to such threads, it seems more a matter of her not being able to find a place is a crowded field, one with multiple women (women's rights is a basic concern of hers) and Biden (if he wasn't in the race, there would be let's say more pie, including perhaps for an established pol who made being anti-Trump a key part of her campaign while still arguing she has the ability to work across party lines).
She has an "insider" taint to her that probably hurt, including a few moves (such as tempered response to an attack on Rep. Omar) that bothered the few who were paying attention. KG had a bit of pol vibe, fair or not. Early on, especially given her anti-Trump record and some feminist bona fides, I was a big fan. I saw her kick-off in NYC in person. But, with Warren and Harris (to me Klobuchar is a reasonable option but few seem to be interested) and her not getting much traction, I basically moved on.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!