Sam (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
l33tminion) wrote2016-04-01 06:14 pm
l33tminion) wrote2016-04-01 06:14 pm
Entry tags:
Political Commentary That Is Not About Trump
There are a few stories I've really wanted to comment on that I haven't gotten around to, so time for a post while I still have a moment to write.
The pending Supreme Court appointment: The Republican Senate caucus' strategy for dealing with appointments to replace the late Justice Scalia is really unprecedented. In particular, it's interesting because of the contrast between that and the obvious alternative strategy of "go through the motions of considering a replacement, and then reject each candidate for some specific reason".
The line that election-year appointments in particular are somehow illegitimate is a bit galling because it's just incredibly transparent that they'd never be making such an argument if the president happened to be a Republican. Also, Obama is not a "lame duck" president, the Republicans haven't even gotten around to nominatingTrump a candidate, much less gotten them elected. Double also, the American people had their say in 2012, when they elected Obama to a second four (note: not three) year term.
The fact that "no meetings, no vote" etc. isn't really the Senate meeting their responsibility under Article 2 of the Constitution isn't that interesting, it's not like the Supreme Court is going to somehow compel them to hold hearings or something like that. What's interesting to me is how this change in strategy will play out in the long run, since it really is unprecedented. Of course, if the Republicans lose their Senate majority as well as the presidency, it will be interesting to see what the actual lame-duck session does as they scramble to prevent 2017's President Clinton (or Sanders?) from nominating and confirming whoever they want (a minority won't cut it, I wouldn't expect them to be able to preserve the filibuster after pulling that stunt). On the other hand, if the Republicans keep their Senate majority but fail to take the presidency, presumably the "will of the American people" won't matter much to them if the majority of those people vote for the Democrat. We could see the incredible shrinking Supreme Court, with increasing stakes for any election where either party might take control of both the Presidency and the Senate. (What could possibly go wrong?)
Anti-anti-discrimination legislation in North Carolina and elsewhere: When Charlotte, North Carolina, passed a law stating that transgender people should be able to use restrooms free from harassment, the North Carolina legislature convened an emergency session to overturn that. The bill they passed was also a blanket prohibition on cities passing anti-discrimination legislation and (for some reason) raising the minimum wage. (Republicans: In favor of local control, unless a more conservative state (or federal) legislature can impose its will on a locality that's more liberal.) The bill doesn't even seem to do at all a good job of achieving conservatives' ostensible goal of having women's restrooms and changing facilities be free from men. (Though, it might be wise for liberals writing such anti-discrimination legislation in the future to consider making some distinction between gender-segregated facilities that involve semi-public nudity and those that don't, given that liberals' rhetoric on the issue focuses in particular on the right to pee in peace and privacy while conservatives' rhetoric focuses on "girls [...] made to shower and undress in front of boys".)
A similar bill was passed by the legislature in South Dakota in late February, but the Republican governor, Dennis Daugaard, vetoed it (note: auto-playing video in linked article), saying the bill "does not address any pressing issue" and reiterating his belief that "the best government is the government closest to the people". (So amend my parenthetical remark above to "not all Republicans".)
Meanwhile, Mississippi is considering a sweeping anti-anti-discrimination bill.
In post-Obergefell America, this is the new form of the culture war. The question is whether it's going to be more a world of awkward and unpleasant compromises or take-no-quarter legislative battles.
Republican party in Cleveland: Not talking about the question of "will it be a brokered convention, or will Trump have a delegate majority outright?" Instead, I'd like to mention that last June, the Republicans in the Ohio Senate added a provision to the budget allowing liquor-license waivers so that Cleveland-area bars can stay open extra late during the Republican National Convention. (You know, to celebrate the nomination of our man, Kasich!) Well, that is actually happening. For some reason, I'm not sure that was such a good idea.
The pending Supreme Court appointment: The Republican Senate caucus' strategy for dealing with appointments to replace the late Justice Scalia is really unprecedented. In particular, it's interesting because of the contrast between that and the obvious alternative strategy of "go through the motions of considering a replacement, and then reject each candidate for some specific reason".
The line that election-year appointments in particular are somehow illegitimate is a bit galling because it's just incredibly transparent that they'd never be making such an argument if the president happened to be a Republican. Also, Obama is not a "lame duck" president, the Republicans haven't even gotten around to nominating
The fact that "no meetings, no vote" etc. isn't really the Senate meeting their responsibility under Article 2 of the Constitution isn't that interesting, it's not like the Supreme Court is going to somehow compel them to hold hearings or something like that. What's interesting to me is how this change in strategy will play out in the long run, since it really is unprecedented. Of course, if the Republicans lose their Senate majority as well as the presidency, it will be interesting to see what the actual lame-duck session does as they scramble to prevent 2017's President Clinton (or Sanders?) from nominating and confirming whoever they want (a minority won't cut it, I wouldn't expect them to be able to preserve the filibuster after pulling that stunt). On the other hand, if the Republicans keep their Senate majority but fail to take the presidency, presumably the "will of the American people" won't matter much to them if the majority of those people vote for the Democrat. We could see the incredible shrinking Supreme Court, with increasing stakes for any election where either party might take control of both the Presidency and the Senate. (What could possibly go wrong?)
Anti-anti-discrimination legislation in North Carolina and elsewhere: When Charlotte, North Carolina, passed a law stating that transgender people should be able to use restrooms free from harassment, the North Carolina legislature convened an emergency session to overturn that. The bill they passed was also a blanket prohibition on cities passing anti-discrimination legislation and (for some reason) raising the minimum wage. (Republicans: In favor of local control, unless a more conservative state (or federal) legislature can impose its will on a locality that's more liberal.) The bill doesn't even seem to do at all a good job of achieving conservatives' ostensible goal of having women's restrooms and changing facilities be free from men. (Though, it might be wise for liberals writing such anti-discrimination legislation in the future to consider making some distinction between gender-segregated facilities that involve semi-public nudity and those that don't, given that liberals' rhetoric on the issue focuses in particular on the right to pee in peace and privacy while conservatives' rhetoric focuses on "girls [...] made to shower and undress in front of boys".)
A similar bill was passed by the legislature in South Dakota in late February, but the Republican governor, Dennis Daugaard, vetoed it (note: auto-playing video in linked article), saying the bill "does not address any pressing issue" and reiterating his belief that "the best government is the government closest to the people". (So amend my parenthetical remark above to "not all Republicans".)
Meanwhile, Mississippi is considering a sweeping anti-anti-discrimination bill.
In post-Obergefell America, this is the new form of the culture war. The question is whether it's going to be more a world of awkward and unpleasant compromises or take-no-quarter legislative battles.
Republican party in Cleveland: Not talking about the question of "will it be a brokered convention, or will Trump have a delegate majority outright?" Instead, I'd like to mention that last June, the Republicans in the Ohio Senate added a provision to the budget allowing liquor-license waivers so that Cleveland-area bars can stay open extra late during the Republican National Convention. (You know, to celebrate the nomination of our man, Kasich!) Well, that is actually happening. For some reason, I'm not sure that was such a good idea.