I know what the decision was in Engquist. My point was that the court acknowledged a class of one was possible and could be invoked, even if they found against Engquist specifically. And I outlined the reasons why I feel Earl Good has a better claim than Anup Engquist did.
I also pointed out that I feel Senator Johnson would be covered if he had just announced a general limit on phone calls, even if that limit only applied in practice to Good. Then he could argue that the limit was directed against phone overloading in general rather than against one person in particular and that would almost certainly pass a rational basis test. And such a limit would apply to everyone equally even though only one person was attempted to surpass it.
But Senator Johnson’s staff didn’t create a general policy and hold Good to it. They told Good he wasn’t allowed to make any phone calls or office visits to the Senator’s office, even though presumably other people are allowed to call or visit.
Your outline did not lay out the rational basis test that is mandated for “class of one” analysis or explain how you believed the cease and desist letter would fail to satisfy the rational basis test.
(1)One Man, not an organized group, keeps repeatedly calling the office
Said man, by his own quote says he called 80 something times one day
then says they should know his number by now.
That kind of suggests he probably got through more than once but did not get the person on the phone he wanted perhaps.
Anyways, he gets through and says Hey i dont want you to vote for so and so.
Ok sir, duly noted
The proceeds to continue calling to say the same thing?
Well, to me he does seem a bit of a nut bag.
If he truly thinks his opinion represents that of the majority of the rest of the constituents, would he not be best served by beginning a petition writing up the grievance fully documenting it and the reasons for it, then getting all these other same mind people to sign to it, then presenting it to the senators office?
That way the senator can see what is the problem, why it is believed to be a problem and that 70% of the people he represents are of the same mind.
Or you can just be that 1 lone guy that calls multiple times a day saying the same thing over and over.
I mean damn, yes you have a right to be heard by your representatives, yes you have a right to present your grievances before them, but there is a way to do that effectively and there is a way to be a useless pain in the ass.
And i have a feeling all the facts are not present yet.
That reminds me. Certainly I have a very easy time getting phone calls through to my GOP Senator and GOP Congressman’s office, whereas the line is often busy for my Democratic Senator’s office. I presume this is a matter of effort being put in where it may do more good; because my Democratic Senator is seen as a moderate, whereas my GOP Senator is seen as very right-wing, very unlikely to turn on the party, and highly corrupt. (And my Congressman didn’t even meet with constituents during last week’s break as far as I know; I suspect he’s not that…engaged.) But if there’s a DDoS going on where I am, it’s on the moderate.
I don’t know what state you’re in, but it seems questionable to say that this senator is seen as highly corrupt when he or she’s been winning elections.
Colorado’s Cory Gardner is in his first term as a senator, but was previously a member of the House and the state legislator. How is it he won the Senate seat if he’s seen as highly corrupt?
Was it Florida? Rubio has won re-election.
Indiana? Todd Young was elected to the House before his senate win.
Missouri? Roy Blunt was the secretary of state and then a Congressman. Somehow a majority of Missouri voters chose him.
Montana? State Daines, House of Representatives first.
Nevada? Dean Heller, state office and Congress.
North Dakota? John Hoeven, the former governor? Seems unlikely that he’s seen as corrupt.
Ohio? Rob Portman, Congressman first.
Pennsylvania? Pat Toomey, former Congressman. Why did heget elected to a statewide office?
West Virginia? State house of delegates and US Congress before Ms. Capito won a stae-wide election.
Wisconsin? Ron Johnson is on his second term as senator.
Which of these is seen as corrupt but keeps winning?
…huh? Maybe we do live in different countries. In mine, corruption and re-election are kissing cousins. I may be jaded due to my beloved local sheriff–er, ex-sheriff–whose corruption was known for years and during many election cycles; or due to our long-time congressional representative, whose ties to Russian banks and connection to financial fraud were also well-known through several election cycles.
But I don’t think so. I think we live in a country with a high tolerance for corruption among our elected officials.
I’m in Missouri. The junior US Senator is named Roy Blunt. He takes a lot of corporate money, some of it from fossil fuel companies. He was denounced as notoriously corrupt back in 1992, in a primary election for Governor, by his own party. GOP voters seem not to care.
“Taking lots of corporate money,” does not mean “corrupt,” even if some of it is from fossil fuel companies.
And if statements from one’s pwn party made during primary campaigns are to be treated as factual evidence, then neither Obama nor Clinton were suitable for the office of President, based on the 2008 statements of Clinton and Obama, respectively.
But of course being denounced by one’s own party in the context of a primary race is not unusual.
It’s clear that Missouri voters as a whole are willing to elect a Democrat to the US Senate. They’ve been voting for Claire McCaskill over her GOP opponents since 2006. So the voters are unlikely to simply be hypnotized by the trailing (R) after Blunt’s name on the ballot.
Maybe he’s seen as “highly corrupt,” by all your pals. But it’s not likely he’s seen as highly corrupt by the voters at large – if he is, how is it the Democrats can’t unseat him? Are they running even more corrupt candidates? Is McCaskill the only incorruptible Democrat in Missouri?
Your comment is exactly the sort of echo-chamber thinking that so many people firmly resolved to avoid after the election, a resolution that lasted about as long as New Years’ resolutions do.
I’m a conservative. Search my posts here – where do you find me calling out any Democratic politicians as corrupt? I disagree with most of the policy choices advocated by Democrats, but I generally feel that these are ill-advised ideas from people who offer them in good faith.
Why is it that you see corruption in taking campaign contributions from corporations? Even (gasp) fossil fuel corporations?
I think you’re right. As so often on this board (and I’ve been guilty of it myself) there’s often a rush to judgment by both sides. When we know that we have the full background then this discussion would have a more solid foundation.
That’s not a disagreement. Of course others don’t agree with my assessment of corruption. That sheriff I’m talking about is serving a long prison sentence after the SBI caught him taking kickbacks from illegal gambling setups, and there are still people who maintain his innocence.
You seem to be suggesting that if a small minority of people disagree with an assessment that someone is corrupt, it’s incorrect to characterize them as “seen as . . . highly corrupt.” Why? What percentage of people must see a politician as corrupt before you’ll accept that characterization?
The idea that a politician widely seen as corrupt will not win re-election requires a ridiculously high bar for the number of people who see her as corrupt.
Nope. Here you are committing the sin of illicit transference. You argue that because the population in large measure views the aggregate political leadership as corrupt, it must follow that they view every member, or at least this member, as corrupt in similar majorities. But that’s not correct. This is a cognitive technique called the representativeness heuristic, but it’s also a logical fallacy.
Show me the poll that says 75% of Missouri voters believe Blount is corrupt, and I’ll agree the point is proved. But all you’ve done here is highlight the cognitive dissonance that holds most voters in sway: “All those politicians are corrupt! But my senators are decent.”
I get your point about perception not being the same as reality, but let’s also acknowledge that it takes years to get so good at corruption that a dirty politician finally gets caught, which necessarily means that corrupt politicians are often good at winning re-election.
See for example, Chaka Fattah (21 years in Congress), William Jefferson (18 years in Congress), Duke Cunningham (14 years in Congress), and Bob Ney (11 years in Congress).
None of which has to do with the merits of the character of any one politician, but we shouldn’t pretend that re-election is a good indicator of character either.
This is an arbitrary standard to apply to a passive-voice verb. Even if we apply it, what people are included in this count?
And yes, I know that folks may not see their own congressperson as corrupt even though they see politicians in general as corrupt. If foolsguinea had said, “50%+1 of the people who voted in the election for my senator regarded him as corrupt,” this would be on-point.
I don’t. I contend that re-election is a fair proxy for how the electorate views the politician. And I was taking issue with the claim that Blount is “seen as corrupt.” (In contrast to McCaskill).
Even still, election results are not very accurate proxies of what people think of candidates. If you add up Trump and Clinton’s vote totals, something like 93% of Americans voted for one or the other. Do you think that correlates to general approval of both candidates?
For the purposes of this question – “What do people think of a candidate?” – a better source of insight would be polls, not elections, because polls test attitudes and elections are about choices. At one point last year, Blunt’s approval rating was down to 31%, though it isn’t clear what issues led to his poor approval rating. He has some sort of problem in his state, clearly, as he eked out a 3 point victory in a state that Trump won by nearly 20 points.