After my last post, about the messy fighting (including a filibuster and the nuclear option) that gave us Judge Gorsuch, a friend asked me what I think about the filibuster.
I purposely avoided that question when discussing the SCOTUS fight, because it was irrelevant to the question I was looking at.. The filibuster was a longstanding tradition. Harry Reid eliminated it for all judges except SCOTUS picks. McConnell took it the next step, eliminating filibusters for SCOTUS picks as well. What are we left with? The filibuster for laws and other matters.
I'm into process. I don't like the idea of making changes because it's politically expedient. When Reagan was President, I recall, some Republicans talked about repealing the 22nd Amendment so that he could run for a third term. Same thing when Clinton's second term was winding down. While I don't like 22A, and would like to see it repealed, I only want it repealed if the effective date is some time in the future -- to remove the incentive to repeal it with a specific candidate in mind.
And so it is with filibusters. I didn't like having the filibuster and the nuking thereof be a matter of winning or losing the current battle. If it was to be nuked, I would have preferred that the Senate nuke it, effective eight years from now.
Now, none of that answers the question of how I feel about the ability to filibuster judges.
The short answer is, I don't know. The issue has come up repeatedly, but always with a specific fight in mind. When President Bush was trying to get his nominees on the lower courts, and the Republicans had a majority that wasn't filibuster-proof. Then under President Obama. And now under Trump.
I can recite the arguments for and against the procedure. No problem. But I haven't. That's because the question seems perpetually clouded by one specific issue of expedience, and I know that my thoughts have always been muddied by my feelings about the fight at hand. Unlike, say, the editors of The New York Times, I don't want to present selfish expedience as some kind of high-minded matter of principle.
That said, I can say that there is one area where I want to keep the filibuster: matters of statute. I am in favor of maintaining the ability of the Senate minority to filibuster laws they find objectionable.
The reason? Stability.
If highly controversial laws can be passed by a bare partisan majority, we run the risk of having laws passed, then undone (as soon as the Senate changes hands), the redone (when it changes back). We need to be able to have more confidence in the stability of our laws. Not that I want laws, once passed, to be forever immutable. But there needs to be a bigger swing in popular opinion.
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
Tuesday, April 11, 2017
gorsuch and such
First, in the interests of full disclosure, I note that (all else equal, and absent the ugly power plays that we saw) I much prefer having Neil Gorsuch on the SCOTUS over having Merrick Garland -- especially given that we're talking about replacing Antonin Scalia. However I must admit that Garland was, as far as I know, qualified for the SCOTUS. More on that later.
I have read a lot of commentators saying that Charles Schumer played his hand poorly; in staging a filibuster, knowing that the Republicans would resort to the nuclear option, he weakened the Democrats in advance of any other SCOTUS nominations that Trump may make. I disagree. Schumer was dealt a losing hand, and played it as best it could have been played.
If Schumer hadn't filibustered, the Democratic base would have attacked him for caving in to the Republicans. From that perspective alone, a feckless filibuster is better than nothing. But aside from that, even if he hadn't filibustered, the fact is that, the dynamics now being what they are, the filibuster was only going to last until one of the parties needed to nuke it. Last fall, when everyone expected the Hillary Clinton to win the Presidency and the Democrats to gain a Senate majority, Democratic leadership made it clear that they would go nuclear if they needed to to get a SCOTUS pick through. It's true that that was in the face of the Republicans' historic obstruction of the Garland nomination -- but I did note a few sentences ago that I'm talking about "the dynamics now being what they are." The fact that the Republicans were willing to go nuclear is now self-evident. This way, Schumer forced the Republicans to be the ones to go nuclear. So the Democrats can at least point to them and scream that they're the ones who are breaking the Senate.
I fear that we are entering -- or have entered -- an era in which the President can only get a SCOTUS nominee confirmed if the Senate is controlled by his or her party.
So how did we get here?
The most logical place to start is with the Garland nomination. One can argue that it goes back farther -- the (lower court) filibusters under President Bush (the son) and the gang of 14, Bork and Thomas, etc. And one shouldn't ignore the fact that the tactics have been escalating for decades. Still though, Obama's prior picks (Kagan and Sotomayor) had gone through with relatively little controversy. So Garland is where I'm starting. The Republicans should have given Garland a hearing. And, assuming nothing untoward had come out of it, given him a vote and confirmed him. I suspect that, had it been a liberal justice being replaced (instead of Scalia), things wouldn't have gotten so nasty. That really shouldn't matter. A SCOTUS seat is a SCOTUS seat -- there aren't conservative seats and liberal seats. But it does matter. And we all know that. So the seat that should have gone to Garland -- and I also acknowledge that Garland was a relative moderate, whom Obama probably picked as a bit of an olive branch.
But I don't put 100% of the blame on the Republicans. Joe Biden (1992) and Charles Schumer (2007) had stated that a President shouldn't nominate a SCOTUS pick during his last year. Of course, while they tried to make their points sound like matters of high principle, it's clear that they were simply partisan posturing. The same, of course can be said about all the arguing about the filibuster. The worst part of politics is the politicians. The irony is that Biden's and Schumer's statements were essentially unforced errors, since neither Bush (the father in 1992, and the son in 2008) had any additional vacancies to fill. The arguments that Democrats made last year about how the President's term is a full four years, and his right to nominate SCOTUS judges doesn't end after three are absolutely correct. But Biden and Schumer had argued otherwise, and gave the Republicans cover to do so. But it's more than that -- since the Democrats had essentially paraded out a new weapon in the ongoing battle for the SCOTUS. Arguably, it would have been foolish for the Republicans to eschew use of that same weapon.
That said, I would have preferred that the Republicans had given Garland a fair hearing. Perhaps they could have kept us off the road we're on now. With Scalia, the opening came nine months before the election. But the slope can get slippery very quickly. Next time it could be an opening eleven months before the election. Then thirteen months. Where does one draw the line? And why there? Politicians may start making assertions couched as principled stands, but -- as with Biden's and Schumer's arguments, these will be matters of naked political expedience.
So, during the election -- especially after the first debate -- it was expected that Clinton would win and nominate someone more liberal. Liberals started gloating that the Republican Senate should rush and confirm Garland, since they won't get anything better. And they were hoping that Obama would withdraw the nomination before the Republicans acted on it.
What a difference an election makes. We got the Trump presidency and Gorsuch. Some have argued that Trump was somehow obligated to make things right by nominating Garland, or that Gorsuch should have turned down the nomination so that it could go to Garland. I sympathize. And if the situation were reversed, I might secretly hope for such magnanimity. But I would know better than to suggest it or expect it. That's simply not how it works.
And on to the filibuster. Let's consider a few facts:
Gee, there's lots of disingenuousness all over the place.
Yeah, I am happy to have Gorsuch on the court. I prefer him to Garland. But there will come a day when something happens that I don't like, and that something will be traceable back to these events. And I won't be happy about it.
I have read a lot of commentators saying that Charles Schumer played his hand poorly; in staging a filibuster, knowing that the Republicans would resort to the nuclear option, he weakened the Democrats in advance of any other SCOTUS nominations that Trump may make. I disagree. Schumer was dealt a losing hand, and played it as best it could have been played.
If Schumer hadn't filibustered, the Democratic base would have attacked him for caving in to the Republicans. From that perspective alone, a feckless filibuster is better than nothing. But aside from that, even if he hadn't filibustered, the fact is that, the dynamics now being what they are, the filibuster was only going to last until one of the parties needed to nuke it. Last fall, when everyone expected the Hillary Clinton to win the Presidency and the Democrats to gain a Senate majority, Democratic leadership made it clear that they would go nuclear if they needed to to get a SCOTUS pick through. It's true that that was in the face of the Republicans' historic obstruction of the Garland nomination -- but I did note a few sentences ago that I'm talking about "the dynamics now being what they are." The fact that the Republicans were willing to go nuclear is now self-evident. This way, Schumer forced the Republicans to be the ones to go nuclear. So the Democrats can at least point to them and scream that they're the ones who are breaking the Senate.
I fear that we are entering -- or have entered -- an era in which the President can only get a SCOTUS nominee confirmed if the Senate is controlled by his or her party.
So how did we get here?
The most logical place to start is with the Garland nomination. One can argue that it goes back farther -- the (lower court) filibusters under President Bush (the son) and the gang of 14, Bork and Thomas, etc. And one shouldn't ignore the fact that the tactics have been escalating for decades. Still though, Obama's prior picks (Kagan and Sotomayor) had gone through with relatively little controversy. So Garland is where I'm starting. The Republicans should have given Garland a hearing. And, assuming nothing untoward had come out of it, given him a vote and confirmed him. I suspect that, had it been a liberal justice being replaced (instead of Scalia), things wouldn't have gotten so nasty. That really shouldn't matter. A SCOTUS seat is a SCOTUS seat -- there aren't conservative seats and liberal seats. But it does matter. And we all know that. So the seat that should have gone to Garland -- and I also acknowledge that Garland was a relative moderate, whom Obama probably picked as a bit of an olive branch.
But I don't put 100% of the blame on the Republicans. Joe Biden (1992) and Charles Schumer (2007) had stated that a President shouldn't nominate a SCOTUS pick during his last year. Of course, while they tried to make their points sound like matters of high principle, it's clear that they were simply partisan posturing. The same, of course can be said about all the arguing about the filibuster. The worst part of politics is the politicians. The irony is that Biden's and Schumer's statements were essentially unforced errors, since neither Bush (the father in 1992, and the son in 2008) had any additional vacancies to fill. The arguments that Democrats made last year about how the President's term is a full four years, and his right to nominate SCOTUS judges doesn't end after three are absolutely correct. But Biden and Schumer had argued otherwise, and gave the Republicans cover to do so. But it's more than that -- since the Democrats had essentially paraded out a new weapon in the ongoing battle for the SCOTUS. Arguably, it would have been foolish for the Republicans to eschew use of that same weapon.
That said, I would have preferred that the Republicans had given Garland a fair hearing. Perhaps they could have kept us off the road we're on now. With Scalia, the opening came nine months before the election. But the slope can get slippery very quickly. Next time it could be an opening eleven months before the election. Then thirteen months. Where does one draw the line? And why there? Politicians may start making assertions couched as principled stands, but -- as with Biden's and Schumer's arguments, these will be matters of naked political expedience.
So, during the election -- especially after the first debate -- it was expected that Clinton would win and nominate someone more liberal. Liberals started gloating that the Republican Senate should rush and confirm Garland, since they won't get anything better. And they were hoping that Obama would withdraw the nomination before the Republicans acted on it.
What a difference an election makes. We got the Trump presidency and Gorsuch. Some have argued that Trump was somehow obligated to make things right by nominating Garland, or that Gorsuch should have turned down the nomination so that it could go to Garland. I sympathize. And if the situation were reversed, I might secretly hope for such magnanimity. But I would know better than to suggest it or expect it. That's simply not how it works.
And on to the filibuster. Let's consider a few facts:
- The Democrats were disingenuous to claim that this was about Gorsuch not being suitable for the Supreme Court. He got the highest possible rating from the ABA.
- The Republicans were disingenuous in noting that this was the first partisan filibuster of a SCOTUS nominee. It may be technically correct, but blocking Garland was the equivalent (or worse) of a filibuster.
- The Democrats were disingenuous to argue against the nuclear option. They had already nuked the filibuster for lower court nominees. They now say they kept it in place for SCOTUS because that's different. But they were ready to go down the same road if Clinton had won and they had regained the Senate. The real reason they kept the filibuster for SCOTUS in place is that they didn't need to nuke it.
Gee, there's lots of disingenuousness all over the place.
Yeah, I am happy to have Gorsuch on the court. I prefer him to Garland. But there will come a day when something happens that I don't like, and that something will be traceable back to these events. And I won't be happy about it.
Monday, April 10, 2017
passover's ultimate irony
Passover starts this evening.You know what's the ultimate irony about Passover? The seder itself. Let me explain...
What's the best-known symbol of Passover? Matzoh -- the thin crackers of unleavened bread, which are also central to the seder. The matzoh is commemorative of the fact that the Israelites were so rushed in their exodus from slavery in Egypt that they didn;t even have time to let their bread rise.
And, with that as the focus, we spend gobs and gobs of time in preparation of the Passover meal where we eat the only kind of bread that our forebears had time for.
Sunday, April 9, 2017
no, the pence rule is not "rape culture."
EDIT: I removed a footnote. Two, technically. They didn't really contribute to this post and someone noted that the post may be better without them.
The Passover Seder, which is a sort of combination of meal and religious service, includes the retelling of the story of Exodus, with lots of added commentary from various Rabbinic sages. One of the sections that has always fascinated me involves the plagues that God unleashed on the ancient Egyptians.
We're all familiar with the Biblical account that features ten plagues? Rabbi Yosi the Gallilean notes that those plagues were referred to as being the finger of God, and that at the Red Sea ;the Egyptians faced the hand of God. He interprets that to mean that there were fifty plagues at the Red Sea. Rabbi Eliezer one-ups him by arguing that each plague was fourfold. So those sixty plagues (ten in Egypt and fifty at the Red Sea) were actually 240. Not to be outdone, Rabbi Akiva wargues that each plague was fivefold, so they total 250. I have long found it fascinating to read the eagerness to see who can interpret God's wrath in the most extreme way.
That passage was on my mind in light of Mike Pence's personal rules of conduct and the outraged hoo-hah that accompanied. Pence won't dine alone with women other than his wife, and won't go to functions where alcohol is served unless his wife is with him. Cue the outrage machine. All women are temptresses! All women are is temptresses! This is misogyny! And he's a hypocrite to boot, since he works for a man with...uh...looser standards for behavior toward women. And it seemed like all these commentators were jumping over each other to see who could denounce Pence in the most extreme way possible. The culmination (for now, AFAIK) comes from Ashley Csanady who, writing for Canada's National Post, argued that Pence's personal rules of conduct are "Rape Culture" at work.
Give. Me. A. Break.
I don't follow Pence's rules for life, but they're his rules and that's between him and his wife. He's not trying to tell others how to live. And to be clear, if you think that, with his other actions and opinions, he's trying to tell others how to live, then address those issues. Don't pin it on a nonissue like this.
In fairness, there has been one argument against his rules that has some merit. That's the fact that, in a world where so much is based on personal relationship and bonhomie, not having dinners with female colleagues puts them at a disadvantage professionally. And, yes, that is unfair. I don't know how, for practical purposes to overcome that. But insisting that Pence can't or shouldn't have this personal rule is not the answer.
Avoiding such situations is not misogynistic. It's not implying that women are all sirens, waiting to drag men to their ethical doom. But it is a recognition that humans are humans and temptation is a powerful thing. Even if you know you can stand up to temptation, it can still be better to avoid it. And that's not even addressing the potential for rumors and innuendo.
But all that aside, the argument that this is "rape culture" ( a term that, gets applied so broadly as to be virtually meaningless) is simply delusional. Csanady's argument, stated concisely, is:
As I stated above, I don't live by Pence's rules. I have had dinner alone with women other than my wife -- sometimes married women even. And I haven't cheated on her. But I don't fault anyone for imposing this extra rule of conduct on himself or herself. The outrage is simply another attempted gotcha at an administration that people hate.
You want more Trump? Objections like this are how we'll get more Trump.
The Passover Seder, which is a sort of combination of meal and religious service, includes the retelling of the story of Exodus, with lots of added commentary from various Rabbinic sages. One of the sections that has always fascinated me involves the plagues that God unleashed on the ancient Egyptians.
We're all familiar with the Biblical account that features ten plagues? Rabbi Yosi the Gallilean notes that those plagues were referred to as being the finger of God, and that at the Red Sea ;the Egyptians faced the hand of God. He interprets that to mean that there were fifty plagues at the Red Sea. Rabbi Eliezer one-ups him by arguing that each plague was fourfold. So those sixty plagues (ten in Egypt and fifty at the Red Sea) were actually 240. Not to be outdone, Rabbi Akiva wargues that each plague was fivefold, so they total 250. I have long found it fascinating to read the eagerness to see who can interpret God's wrath in the most extreme way.
That passage was on my mind in light of Mike Pence's personal rules of conduct and the outraged hoo-hah that accompanied. Pence won't dine alone with women other than his wife, and won't go to functions where alcohol is served unless his wife is with him. Cue the outrage machine. All women are temptresses! All women are is temptresses! This is misogyny! And he's a hypocrite to boot, since he works for a man with...uh...looser standards for behavior toward women. And it seemed like all these commentators were jumping over each other to see who could denounce Pence in the most extreme way possible. The culmination (for now, AFAIK) comes from Ashley Csanady who, writing for Canada's National Post, argued that Pence's personal rules of conduct are "Rape Culture" at work.
Give. Me. A. Break.
I don't follow Pence's rules for life, but they're his rules and that's between him and his wife. He's not trying to tell others how to live. And to be clear, if you think that, with his other actions and opinions, he's trying to tell others how to live, then address those issues. Don't pin it on a nonissue like this.
In fairness, there has been one argument against his rules that has some merit. That's the fact that, in a world where so much is based on personal relationship and bonhomie, not having dinners with female colleagues puts them at a disadvantage professionally. And, yes, that is unfair. I don't know how, for practical purposes to overcome that. But insisting that Pence can't or shouldn't have this personal rule is not the answer.
Avoiding such situations is not misogynistic. It's not implying that women are all sirens, waiting to drag men to their ethical doom. But it is a recognition that humans are humans and temptation is a powerful thing. Even if you know you can stand up to temptation, it can still be better to avoid it. And that's not even addressing the potential for rumors and innuendo.
But all that aside, the argument that this is "rape culture" ( a term that, gets applied so broadly as to be virtually meaningless) is simply delusional. Csanady's argument, stated concisely, is:
The explicit reasons for Pence’s restriction are religion and family, but the implicit reason is that he must avoid alone-time with women lest his stringent religious moral code fall apart in the presence of a little lipstick and décolletage. That is rape culture.I've known couples whose marriages fell apart because of infidelity. And said infidelity started with temptation. One partner was alone with someone else. And they gave into temptation. But rape wasn't involved. Consensual sex was. It's Csanady who makes the mental leap to rape. Essentially assuming that men are monsters and/or women lack sexual agency.
As I stated above, I don't live by Pence's rules. I have had dinner alone with women other than my wife -- sometimes married women even. And I haven't cheated on her. But I don't fault anyone for imposing this extra rule of conduct on himself or herself. The outrage is simply another attempted gotcha at an administration that people hate.
You want more Trump? Objections like this are how we'll get more Trump.
Friday, April 7, 2017
bay of blood (cinema history class)
Session: Giallo-Rama, week 1
Movie: Bay of Blood (1979)
Plot:
After a rich woman dies, everyone connected to her tries to kill each other in order to inherit her land. Hilarity ensues.
Class Reaction:
This went over like gangbusters. The cinematography was great. The transitions were superb. And we all agreed that this had the best decapitation scene we're ever seen. The energy in the room was great. And when we got to the ending -- and what an ending it was -- there was just this huge rush. I enjoyed Joe's comment that this was sort of like a Scooby Doo episode in which people actually get murdered.
It was noted -- I forget by whom -- that Friday the 13th Part 2 was heavily influenced by this, though I wouldn;t know since I never saw it.
Keith opened by explaining what Giallos are -- essentially, lurid crime dramas from Italy. So named because the film genre was adapted from books. The books were called giallos because they were printed on yellow paper (to alert the reader that they were not for children), and "giallo" is Italian for "yellow." It was a helpful explanation. Though I think we all had a vague idea of what Giallos were, we weren't really sure and it was helpful to introduce a month of such films with a bit of exposition about what they are.
The scores from everyone else:
- Joe: 10 / 10
- Dave: 9.5 to 9.8 / 10
- Sean: (declined to rate, as he wasn't familiar enough with Giallos)
- Scott: 9.5 / 10
- Ethan: 9.5 to 10 /10
My Thoughts:
As the movie was winding down -- or at least coming to its conclusion, since it never really wound down -- I found myself conflicted. I was really enjoying the movie for a lot of the same reasons that everyone else was. But I was having a hard time following the plot. Wait, who are they? How are these people related to those people? Why is she trying to kill him?
And yet, despite my confusion I was enjoying it immensely. I had pretty much decided that I would be rating it a 7. But then the ending came, and that pushed it up to 8. And during the post-viewing conversation, my appreciation for this movie was growing. In the end, I gave it a 9. But it was going through my head the rest of the night, and a lot of today. If I were rating it now, I'd probably give it a 9.5 or so.
This was my first exposure to Giallos, and I have to say it was a great introduction. I only hope that the next three don't prove to be a letdown.
I;m not quite sure if Bay of Blood passes the Bechdel Test, at least technically. But the film has enough women in who are driving the action, that I think it passes the spirit of the test if not the letter.
I also note that Bay of Blood was released under a variety of names, including the following:
The Odor of FleshTwitch of the Death NerveCarnageThus Do We Live to Be EvilBlood BathLast House on the Left Part IIEcology of A CrimeThe AntecedentChain ReactionNew House on the LeftBloodbath Bay of DeathThat Will Teach Them to Be BadExtras:
Before we watched the movie, Keith showed us the trailers for three other Giallos. I wish I had noted down the titles. He says he'll do that each of the rermaining weeks of this session.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)