He isn’t suggesting anything of the sort. He is specifically suggesting reforming the court to prevent the other side from doing it, because they do it more and give fewer fucks. He’s saying he wants two of Kennedy rather than Thomas and Scalia, and is willing to exchange by having two of Souter instead of Ginsburg and Breyer.
The suggested reform won’t work for reasons previously stated.
Edit: On reflection and review @ravenight, I think you’re right. That is what he is saying: Not that he would appoint a Kennedy, but that he can live with the other side appointing a Kennedy and that he would appoint moderates in return.
Still, there is no one with whom to make that bargain, because the other side will not play along.
He should know these things.
CraigM
6094
Yeah I misstated the list. It is appointees, but not explicitly cabinet level.
And yes I am immediately discounting Flynn, Kushner, and Cohn from Trumps list.
Matt_W
6095
Not only that, but decisions by the Court aren’t its only output. Opionions and Dissents are also important. I want a wide range of ideological positions writing those papers. (Preferably a range that proportionally reflects the electorate’s ideological range.) I don’t want a Court made up of the mushy middle. Moderates have no conviction.
antlers
6096
I would demand satisfaction for such calumny, but I just don’t feel like it.
Alstein
6097
If you did it in early 2021, voters would forget about it by 2022.
Not like Noted Centrists and Serious Thinkers in the mold of John Kasich, who definitely wouldn’t push the far-right agenda to which his party has submitted entirely.
Timex
6099
Touched a nerve, i guess.
We all have our exposed nerves.
Like, for example, about inane bothsidesisms that were tiresome in 2001 before I Just Want To Have A Beer With Him, Shucks launched the country into two decades of pointless, unproductive war.
Timex
6102
But you are getting upset because i said this:
Who do you think I was directing it at? You?
You don’t think it’s true? Or you think that those people are right, and shouldn’t be called tyrants?
I don’t think a law requiring a Rep or Senator to cast a vote would survive a Constitutional challenge.
If the Dems win the House and Senate and White House, they must first abolish the filibuster so they can legislate, and then they must pass laws that will ultimately appeal to the majority, and then they must hold the White House for the full two terms to fend off repeal efforts. The ACA is the example: It has mostly survived because it had 5-6 years to work and gain support and even after Obama was gone the GOP couldn’t find the votes to kill it.
So, for me, that means a Medicare expansion / buy-in / public option paired with tax increases of some kind for the wealthy, passed in the first two years. That kind of law will be popular and should grow in popularity. Then go after something meaningful on climate change.
Tough editorial from Rahm Emanuel
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/someone-needs-to-say-it-medicare-for-all-is-a-pipe-dream/2019/10/25/b4b6a17e-f764-11e9-8cf0-4cc99f74d127_story.html
I’m mystified as to why, at a moment when 90 percent of Americans already have insurance, our presidential debates are focused so exclusively on expanding coverage rather than containing costs.
I’m glad I’m not alone, in wondering why so much energy is spent on re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic figuring who pays for medical care (billionaires, middle class, the next generation or the tooth fairy) and so little is spent on figuring out how to reduce costs.
The bottom line is that there’s simply no path to enacting Medicare-for-all in the current political environment, and promising something we can’t deliver will do nothing but depress Democratic turnout in years to come. Since we’re already proposing to rewrite the tax code, decriminalize the border, give everyone free college and eliminate the use of fossil fuels with the Green New Deal — all initiatives that will require us to expend enormous amounts of political capital — maybe we want to be strategic on at least one big-ticket item.
Our approach to health care needs to be centered on political reality, not a pipe dream. Let’s pursue an agenda that not only controls costs and expands coverage but also opens the door for us to succeed fighting inequality, improving education, saving the environment and delivering social justice.
Oghier
6105
Kicking 100m+ people off their private insurance is essentially impossible. It won’t happen. I assume Warren will be a little more pragmatic if she wins, rather than tilting at that windmill.
MFAWWI, a true public option is the right answer.
Yeh, I’m fine with that as long as the subsidies for the public option are no bigger than the private system. The family of 4 making $50K, gets the same $4,000 subsidy for United Health Care, Kaiser or the public option.
I agree with Rahm on this, but I don’t think it’s much of a mystery why the Democratic nomination race is focused on Medicare for All. You’ve got to stand out to win, health care is the biggest issue, so you pick something big and bold. Honestly I’m more surprised that only Warren and Sanders went the MFA route. This isn’t about logic, it’s about getting those feelings stirred up. “Medicare for All” does that a lot better than “Public option and lower costs”, even if the latter is a lot more logical.
I think everyone else decided they weren’t going to out-left Warren and Sanders even if the tried, so they tried to stake out positions to the right of those two.
Alstein
6109
The public option needs to be entirely income-based. Private insurance can remain profit-based.
Why? If the public option is better as people say, why not let the public select it?
Timex
6111
What does income based mean?
