3943

How much of the controversy about ACA was manufactured, and how much was genuine? It was a plan born in a GOP think tank.

3944

No, I’m not assuming that. On the other hand, if you say that democracy will compensate for judicial overreach, then you’re assuming there is such a thing as judicial overreach, which makes my wonder how you manage to identify judicial overreach, other than by saying it looks like overreach to you. And you still haven’t pointed to any examples of democracy compensating for judicial overreach, while I’ve at least tried to offer a counterexample. So there’s that.

3945

If the law 1) requires employers to give employees adequate time off to vote, and 2) requires them to pay for that time, it would pretty much solve the whole problem.

3946

What about adding an actual incentive to vote like a $100 refundable tax credit if you vote, zippo if you don’t?

Some countries have mandatory voting with fines but that would be hated here. However, an incentive? Might be viable IMO.

3947

Not all. For instance, Henry Stanbery was nominated in April 1866, and never got a vote.

OK, but not all unprecedented factors are constitutionally relevant.

I was addressing the implication that the Senate is constitutionally obligated to vote on a nominee. If so, there is no exception for lame duck nominations.

3948

Stanbery was a political ally of Andrew Johnson’s who actually resigned as AG to defend Johnson in his impeachment trial. It’s hardly surprising Congress didn’t take his subsequent appointment by Johnson seriously.

Since none of them are unconstitutional, arguably none of them are constitutionally relevant. I think that’s a red herring, if we’re talking about norms.

3949

Best idea would be to force election hours to be 12 hours a day consecutive for 7 straight days as a minimal requirement everywhere (it would have to be open on at least one Sunday)

3950

You’d still need paid time off for voting. Some people work every day, multiple jobs. That’s how it is.

3951

I didn’t bring up “judicial overreach”, so maybe you should define it yourself.

What I said was that if the Court were more politically accountable, ie via regular Court packing, then its decisions would be more in keeping with popular sentiment.

In controversial issues, this might result in more reversals. Eventually, the public would reach a consensus, and the Court (like elected officials) would be politically punished if it violated that consensus.

3952

Employers are also supposed to offer paid breaks/lunches based on the time worked in some states, and pay for all work done - including clean-up after the place of business is closed to the public. This doesn’t always happen, and in practice affects low income workers more (ie: the people you’re trying to get to vote). Or maybe the employer will give time off if pressed, and then magically the employee no longer finds themselves with hours in the coming weeks. Word spreads, and no one asks for time off to vote anymore.

It’s naive at best to assume a law of that scope would fix the issue.

3953

I say government should give folks $120 to vote in general/midterm elections. $15*8 hours.

3954

Obviously norms were violated.

I was responding to another person’s argument, which questioned whether “whether Congress had the power to completely refuse advice and consent”. They do.

3955

There’s a bigger picture here, IMO, magnet We are in a unique time in the US: one of the two major parties has gone past partisanship into reality-denying tribalism, willing to break any rule or norm to win at all costs, and willing to suppress votes, shirk Constitutional responsibilities, and abuse any process. This is a change. I don’t feel this description applies to all conservatives or all Republicans throughout US History, just the current group based around Limbaugh, Fox, Breitbart and Trump.

In that situation we should not hamstring ourselves by worrying about long term precedents.

And yes, I realize that is a nasty slippery slope, can be very self-serving, can be very subjective, etc. But the norms that used to stabilize and bound our politics have been repeatedly broken by the Republicans and given their current power position and the gerrymandering etc., it’s just necessary to take steps I would have not taken a couple of decades ago.

And I’m definitely not someone who goes around saying “the ends justify the means” - I don’t think that. However, it’s also true that the Constitution is not a suicide pact; so when the basics of our Republic are threatened, I do in fact think you have to trade punches, even if they are below the belt. It’s incredibly F’ed up that it’s come to this, but this is where the GOP has brought us.

And if you say, “what is the crisis here?” think - Senators representing 140 million Americans just stomped over Senators representing 180 million Americans in a major way that will affect the country for decades. That’s not democracy. Trump lost the actual vote by 3 million votes and yet has been pushing executive power past all the (already overreaching) precedents. Numerous states have passed unnecessary voter ID laws, reducing voter turnout by thousands or more, when the documented cases of actual voter fraud in most of those states were zero or single digits. Several states have closed polling locations, shortened voting hours, etc., in ways found by Federal judges to be racially targeted and racially discriminatory. Trump has confessed to obstructing justice on national television and Congress has done nothing.

I have no doubt that if the GOP retains both houses and the Presidency this year, all of these trends will continue. I’m not a paranoiac who thinks fascism is imminent, but I do think a gradual erosion of democracy will occur if the GOP continues in power: the federal courts and the federal government will both be permanently shifted in a partisan direction; the actual ability to vote will be be further infringed in a fashion targeted at Dems and their perceived allied groups, and probably much more. On top of that, there will be continued and strengthened economic policies that lead the way to Kansas and/or banana-republicdom.

I’m often legalistic and focus on details of law and procedure (see the whole thing about lifetime appointments, above) but despite that, we have to care more about outcomes than how we get there, for the time being. This completely sucks, but the alternatives are all shit.

3957

gman just can’t keep away it seems

3958

The fix for making it easier to vote is for folks to interact on the state level, to pass state laws enabling absentee voting.

Lots of states do this. This is the solution.

It’s easy, and cheap.

It’s not something to solve on the national level, because the way our system is designed, voting takes place on the state level

Honestly, the biggest mistake that the Democrats made since 2000, and the biggest success executed by Michael steel before the GOP booted him, is the focus on the state legislatures.

And folks, seriously. Don’t even bother reading GMan’s new post. It’s long and boring. Just TL;DR it.

3959

I largely agree with you.

Even if I don’t think the Senate violated the Constitution, they are breaking norms and we should not be bound by norms either.

So if court packing becomes necessary in the future, then we should not worry about the precedent it would set, because Republicans don’t seem to be restrained by precedent.

3960

Very nice.

Now tell us the story of how the GOP repealed the ACA!

See ya in November.

3961

Just to be clear, I don’t think the stiffing of Garland violated the express text of the Constitution, the letter of the law. I think it violated the clear and historically accepted spirit of the law and the ethical course of action, which is still quite serious. Norms make the world go 'round, for better and for worse.

3962

This is true. There was nothing illegal about what McConnell did. But it damaged the at
Institutions of our country by further destroying notions of trust and bipartisanship.

3963

You didn’t use the words, but they’re clearly implied here:

With respect to this:

It sounds reasonable, but it’s basically a guess. The Court is already somewhat politically accountable; unpopular decisions should in theory lead to wave elections which sweep the other party into power and ultimately shift the balance of the Court. In practice, that accountability breaks down, e.g. Bush v Gore leads not to a Democratic wave but actually to repeated Republican electoral victories so that Bush replaces two justices. Then the Court squashes the Medicaid expansion which leads not to Democratic victories but Republican ones, allowing McConnell to block Garland.

Completely agree that we shouldn’t be bound by the norms on this stuff. Just doubtful it will produce the result we want.