ETA: I have not gone into the weeds, but the first presidential caucus for 2020 (Iowa) was held on Monday and it had problems, not only related to a new app used. Part of the problem was that new rules with good intentions made things more complicated in the first run. The bottom line is -- even with all the "they fucked this up" stuff -- remains that it appears (if with a delay, as was the case in the past), we will get the results. As Rick Hasen noted, get used to it -- election results will not always be immediate. This doesn't hand-wave, but calm down.
The basic lesson is a caucus, however charming and quaint in some ways, is a dubious and undemocratic way to run an election. The inability of a range of people to be involved is but one problem as is a certain Electoral College problem where the winner of the popular vote might not win the most delegates.
We are moving on to the "Trump emboldened" stage with the formal impeachment vote in the Senate today. I saw a headline like that on the NYT website, showing the limits to the "Trump did something wrong and inappropriate" line by various Republican senators. I take even that as something, if not much, since they rarely even do that. Hard to say Trump was "vindicated" with that sort of comment. People will try.
It was negotiated that the vote would be today and thus we had the absurdity of Trump giving the State of the Union last night while still being in impeachment limbo. AOC and a few others (two members of the squad showed up and walked out; Roberts, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh along with Kagan was there; Breyer, a usual, had the flu) didn't show up, most (including both of my senators) showed up basically in honor of the office and political form. This is wrong. Trump is normalized by these events and he is not normal. This is a basic reason why impeachment was appropriate, even if we can criticize various aspects of it (what is really "perfect" though? even the Constitution speaks of a "more" perfect union, not a perfect union).
It's nice that Pelosi didn't introduce him with the usual honorific boilerplate and ripped up his speech after he was done, but let's be clear. The SOTU occurring itself normalizes him. A lot more Democrats at least should not have shown up and dignified him in the process. I know it's hard. It is not like I do a lot of showy things to make a principled stand. Still, we are at moment where they are warranted. People still want to treat this as a normal thing, if somewhat more unpleasant. Let the elections settle it, which basically again gives him a certain amount of legitimacy. Elections are inherently discretionary things on a basic level. They very well also can have a larger message with larger consequences. See, e.g., the New Deal basically changing constitutional law. Only so much though.*
Trump's SOTU was a clusterfuck, as might be expected, but some make a general argument that the whole affair is stupid. I respect concern. A honest and fully useful approach to carrying out the constitutional duty to inform Congress of the state of the union and suggest legislation is a written report. Trump basically provided a campaign speech. Still, there is a place for such pomp and circumstance, including the media element, in today's world. Like the Pelosi ripping the speech, that is part of constitutional politics. And, it will include some partisan stuff as it likely always did to some extent.
The summary holds. This is what this sort of "he's wrong but" op-eds from "reasonable" Republican senators tell us. They toss in the usual b.s. -- the House rushed (because of an imminent threat, so to speak, to elections), Trump's due process was violated, he didn't break the law (impounding funds for illegitimate reasons alone is a problem without the bribery-like behavior) and talk of moving on to do stuff (the House passed a lot of stuff ... ball in your court, dude). Meanwhile, here is an impeachment manager back before this came out showing how Trump abused power and so forth regarding the Mueller Report materials.
The surprise of the day was that Mitt Romney, the Republican Party candidate for POTUS in 2012, voted guilty on the abuse of power count. You can explain it in a variety of ways, including Utah voters not liking Trump (he won a mere plurality), but it is to be respected all the same. It can have important effects too, including robbing Trump and Republicans of the "partisan impeachment" label. It is but one vote, but some vote! Meanwhile, the iffy Dems (Jones, Sinema and Manchin) all voted to remove on both counts. I thought Sinema, who isn't running for years, had the least reason to vote to acquit, especially after she got in trouble for clapping at some mild proposal Trump raised last night (she did her bipartisan piece). Romney was key cover there too, perhaps.
We are only talking about two other times, but Romney is the first senator to vote to convict a president (or whatever Trump is) that was a member of his own party. The fight continues. Roberts will hear those three financial records cases and Trump's abuse of power continues on a daily basis.
---
* I was looking at a couple briefs in the upcoming abortion case and something stood out for me in a brief that focuses on black women. The brief at one point notes that trans and non-gender conforming people can get pregnant, not just "women," but the brief will use that term given current doctrine. Would the ERA affect that? A GLBTQ rights bill very well might as would employment rights cases touching upon that issue to be decided this very term. This shows the complexities here.
The basic lesson is a caucus, however charming and quaint in some ways, is a dubious and undemocratic way to run an election. The inability of a range of people to be involved is but one problem as is a certain Electoral College problem where the winner of the popular vote might not win the most delegates.
We are moving on to the "Trump emboldened" stage with the formal impeachment vote in the Senate today. I saw a headline like that on the NYT website, showing the limits to the "Trump did something wrong and inappropriate" line by various Republican senators. I take even that as something, if not much, since they rarely even do that. Hard to say Trump was "vindicated" with that sort of comment. People will try.
It was negotiated that the vote would be today and thus we had the absurdity of Trump giving the State of the Union last night while still being in impeachment limbo. AOC and a few others (two members of the squad showed up and walked out; Roberts, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh along with Kagan was there; Breyer, a usual, had the flu) didn't show up, most (including both of my senators) showed up basically in honor of the office and political form. This is wrong. Trump is normalized by these events and he is not normal. This is a basic reason why impeachment was appropriate, even if we can criticize various aspects of it (what is really "perfect" though? even the Constitution speaks of a "more" perfect union, not a perfect union).
It's nice that Pelosi didn't introduce him with the usual honorific boilerplate and ripped up his speech after he was done, but let's be clear. The SOTU occurring itself normalizes him. A lot more Democrats at least should not have shown up and dignified him in the process. I know it's hard. It is not like I do a lot of showy things to make a principled stand. Still, we are at moment where they are warranted. People still want to treat this as a normal thing, if somewhat more unpleasant. Let the elections settle it, which basically again gives him a certain amount of legitimacy. Elections are inherently discretionary things on a basic level. They very well also can have a larger message with larger consequences. See, e.g., the New Deal basically changing constitutional law. Only so much though.*
Trump's SOTU was a clusterfuck, as might be expected, but some make a general argument that the whole affair is stupid. I respect concern. A honest and fully useful approach to carrying out the constitutional duty to inform Congress of the state of the union and suggest legislation is a written report. Trump basically provided a campaign speech. Still, there is a place for such pomp and circumstance, including the media element, in today's world. Like the Pelosi ripping the speech, that is part of constitutional politics. And, it will include some partisan stuff as it likely always did to some extent.
Lesson 1: The President cannot be counted on to deter foreign interference and may even encourage it again.…Rick Hasen provides a summary of what the impeachment teaches up, a better summary than Sen. Collins (R-Concern Troll) suggesting Trump will now be more cautious. One hopes there that maybe some people behind the scenes will be more cautious, but we are talking a mixed bag at best. Then, we have Sen. Rand Paul flashing the name of someone he thinks might be the whistleblower on live television. Another "lesson" learned. Anyway, after the vote, things won't suddenly stop. There will be a trio of cases coming for oral argument in March over Trump financial records. The House will continue to investigate, including again trying to get John Bolton to testify. And, so forth.
Lesson 2: Republicans in the Senate can be expected to back up Trump lies about 2020 election results.….
Lesson 3: The country is seriously polarized and facts themselves are up for grabs.
The summary holds. This is what this sort of "he's wrong but" op-eds from "reasonable" Republican senators tell us. They toss in the usual b.s. -- the House rushed (because of an imminent threat, so to speak, to elections), Trump's due process was violated, he didn't break the law (impounding funds for illegitimate reasons alone is a problem without the bribery-like behavior) and talk of moving on to do stuff (the House passed a lot of stuff ... ball in your court, dude). Meanwhile, here is an impeachment manager back before this came out showing how Trump abused power and so forth regarding the Mueller Report materials.
The surprise of the day was that Mitt Romney, the Republican Party candidate for POTUS in 2012, voted guilty on the abuse of power count. You can explain it in a variety of ways, including Utah voters not liking Trump (he won a mere plurality), but it is to be respected all the same. It can have important effects too, including robbing Trump and Republicans of the "partisan impeachment" label. It is but one vote, but some vote! Meanwhile, the iffy Dems (Jones, Sinema and Manchin) all voted to remove on both counts. I thought Sinema, who isn't running for years, had the least reason to vote to acquit, especially after she got in trouble for clapping at some mild proposal Trump raised last night (she did her bipartisan piece). Romney was key cover there too, perhaps.
We are only talking about two other times, but Romney is the first senator to vote to convict a president (or whatever Trump is) that was a member of his own party. The fight continues. Roberts will hear those three financial records cases and Trump's abuse of power continues on a daily basis.
---
* I was looking at a couple briefs in the upcoming abortion case and something stood out for me in a brief that focuses on black women. The brief at one point notes that trans and non-gender conforming people can get pregnant, not just "women," but the brief will use that term given current doctrine. Would the ERA affect that? A GLBTQ rights bill very well might as would employment rights cases touching upon that issue to be decided this very term. This shows the complexities here.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!