Then you were standing in a very weird place. It was a statement that attacks on women’s rights will be resisted no matter what. You are referring to one emotion that was common among the attendees, but to claim that was the entire motivation is pretty myopic.
I don’t really sense a mandate for either party, if mandate means a broad national consensus that one party or another should be in charge.
Many states have evidence of broad consensus for Republicans; fewer states (but with larger populations) have broad consensus that Democrats should be in charge.
Which brings me to:
This is, in my opinion, historically myopic.
When the Constitution was being discussed, individual states were sovereign entities. States were reluctant to approve the Constitution, to join the new government, unless the new government adopted protections that would secure their ability to maintain participation in the government based on factors other than population. This is what led to the Senate, in which each state, regardless of size, was represented, and to the electoral college, which weighted both population and state voice by assigning electoral votes as a combination of population and statehood.
Without agreeing to that bargain, the states don’t agree to form the new government. But they did, contingent on remaining separately and jointly sovereign with the new national government.
Now you come along and say, in effect, that geographic locations are just where people are and have no other relevance. But that’s not true: the geographic locations are the deal that secured the form of government we have. If you want that changed, it cannot be done by fiat. You are bound to work within the boundaries of the agreement itself.
You cannot, in my view, meaningfully dismiss state boundaries as mere geography. Taken to its conclusion, the goatherd in Austria and the tailor in Capetown are also separated from your calculations by mere geography. Why is their view not relevant to determining a mandate?
The answer is, as I see it, that geography is an inextricable part of the system created by mutual assent amongst sovereign entities and not now vulnerable to dismissal except by the same methods.
Of course, political bonds may also be dissolved other ways, as Jefferson reminded King George III.
And that is my point. Most of the time, a party gets 50%+ 1, and calls it a mandate.
In 2008, we had the closest to a mandate that we’ve had since '84 Reagan.
See how that turned out.
Now, we have an election that barely squeaks by in the republican’s favor, and they feel that they hold the keys to the government with no check.
This is why their healthcare bill failed so spectacularly. They have no idea what the people actually want.
Do you know what it was called at the time? It was not a happy bargain. It was the “Great Compromise.” Both sides were unhappy with it, but it was what ended up being what we went with.
At the time, too, there was one representative for every 30,000 people, now it is one for several hundred thousand.
At the time, the largest state was only a little more than twice the population of the smallest state. Now the largest state is dozens of times larger than the smallest state.
So, with neither side being happy with the great compromise, the small states have continued their creep of power, with the reduction of representation in the house, and the larger disparities in state size, until it is a grotesque charicature of the original compromise.
I didn’t say they have no other relevance. I just said that geographics are where people live.
My point is not that democrats should have more power in the senate than they do, just the it is important to recognize that the senate does not accurately reflect the wishes of the people. This is in the short term a problem for the democrats, who cannot get their ideas to be heard, and are forced to accept the republican’s ideas, even though the democrats have more actual people behind them. But this is a long term problem for republicans, because as they take power, the people are realizing that they are not suited for governing, and are not reflecting the wishes of the electorate.
This has been shown in the republicans fiasco over the healthcare bill. That is proof enough that the republicans have no ability or desire to govern, and even their supporters are beginning to see it, moderates, anyway.
Are they citizens? If they are citizens of the US, then their views are in fact relevant, regardless of their current geography, and we will send them an absentee ballot. If they are not citizens of the US, then their views are not relevant to the desires of US citizens.
True, the great compromise set up the system we have now. But the founders also believed in compromise. If they current attitudes in washington had prevailed in the 1770’s we’d still be several individual colonies under british rule. If it had prevailed in the 1780’s we’d still probably be a confederation of sovereign states, similar to what europe is now.
You historical perspective is not useless, but yours is the myopic view, if you do not realize that compromise and working together is what created this nation, and what made it a pretty good place to live. Obstructionism and political grandstanding games are not what the founders had in mind.
Lets hope it doesn’t go that far.
(a) Geographics are where people live
(b) Geographic locations are just where people are
The second is your quote, and the word “just” suggests no other relevance beyond an address.
Not citizens. But only because of the geography of their birth.
Jefferson and Burr?
We had Congressional elections in 2016. I am not aware of any significant number of GOP Senators attempting to hang onto their seats by claiming they would have voted to confirm Garland. Feel free to cite if I am mistaken.
Keeping in mind that there are a larger number of Democratic seats in the Senate that will be up for re-election than Republican ones, thus a larger number of cases where “I would have voted for Garland” is pretty much a foregone conclusion and therefore probably not a significant factor.
Plus, it appears to me that most of the blame for not having hearings or a vote on Garland is McConnell’s, not Trump. If you are saying that in 2018,Trump is so universally despised that every single thing he did, including nominating so scholarly and thoughtful a person as Gorsuch, will have to be repudiated, that remains to be seen.
Perhaps I’m projecting, but the nomination of Gorsuch is the best thing Trump has done so far. And, although I didn’t vote for Trump, the only reason I would have, and the only reason the Trump voter with whom I am most familiar did, is that he would nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court.
Regards,
Shodan
Yep. And why wouldn’t they? Clearly, upholding democratic norms (like “the president gets to nominate supreme court justices and that gets to actually mean something”) is considerably less important than winning on a particular policy agenda.
No idea. The ability of the court to pass down rulings based on the text of the constitution is not just a norm but a fundamental part of our system, if that’s what you’re asking. But let’s not pretend that this ruling was some shocking breach of court etiquette.
Well thank god for small favors.
Never mind, I take it back.
You read too much into it. I was being dismissive of geography being more important than people. I do think that people are more important than land. The whole government by the people, for the people thing, doesn’t mention geography. This does not mean that I do not recognize the realities of how it is set up.
The fact that you can control the senate, while having a minority of supporters is an accident of geography.
Maybe this is something that needs looked into, maybe it is something we should change, I don’t know. I’d be for some updates to the dust old parchment that we refer to when we try to run this civilization, but that’s not my point.
I am only saying that when the senate says that they are reflecting the will of the people in knocking down Garland, when they say that Gorsuch is the justice that they people want, and in the future when they replace ginsburg with a far right ideologue because that is what the people sent them to washington to do, they are being disingenuous. The people did not send them there. They were not put into power because more people were wanting their views to win out over their opposition. They are there due to an accident of geography. The fact that there are a number of states that few people desire to live, and those states that few desire to live in have an undue influence over the states that people do wish to live in.
And the citizenship status of their parents.
But as they will be unaffected by any healthcare or abortion or SSM laws or rulings that may come about because of the US government, their views really are less important than the views of those who will be effected by the actions of the government.
Not sure that the cluster that was the 1800 election had to influence the constitution written a decade earlier, but there were interesting crises that resulted from the document being imperfect and not covering all possibilities. (Of historical note, Jefferson’s votes were higher due to the 3/5’s rule bolstering the representation of slave holding states, so n early example of a politician being elected on the backs of ones who never would have voted for him.)
[quote=shodan]
We had Congressional elections in 2016. I am not aware of any significant number of GOP Senators attempting to hang onto their seats by claiming they would have voted to confirm Garland. Feel free to cite if I am mistaken.
[quote]
Was Trump President then? Had the GOP spectacularly failed in it’s long awaited obama care replace and repeal? Had Gorsuch taken the seat, and provided some questionable opinions?
There was no reason for the republicans to run away from their tent in 2016, so there would be no reason for them to make the claim they would have voted for Gorsuch.
Do you not understand that it is entirely possible that, given the direction the GOP is going right now, in 2018, republicans from moderate states may wish to distance themselves from the decisions of its failed leadership?
I am not stating this is as a fact, but a prediction. But if someone wants to bet, I’ll go even odds for 2018, and give even better odds for 2020 when more than 9 GOP senators are up for reelection, that at least one republican senator breaks rank with the leadership and claims they would have been happy to vote for him . Quite a few senators had meetings or lunches with Garland. One, or several of those may find it politically advantageous to claim they would have supported him.
That’s the only reason that I am a bit reserved on 2018, there are only really 3 R seats up for easy grabs.
Though there are primaries in other states where the issue of judicial voting may come up.
Trump is going to leave a stench over everything GOP fo quite a while, but in this instance, I am in agreement, Like I said, it is McConnel and the GOP leadership overall that senators in moderate states will be running from. Trump just makes everything even worse for the GOP.
To be honest, nominating Gorsuch was one of the least reprehensible things that Trump has done. Jeb or Rubio or Pence, even Kasich probably would have nominated the same guy, or some other guy pretty much exactly like him. While I disagree with the idea that it is a good thing to move the court to the right, that is just a normal political difference, it is how the GOP got this chance to pick it’s SC justice that I do not find normal at all, and it is entirely possible that a substantial part of the american electorate, including those on your side of the fence, will come to realize that winning is not as important as actually governing.
I don’t see why McConnell’s refusal to hold hearings in 2016 would have so little effect in 2016, and why it would have any more effect in 2018 when many fewer GOP Senate seats are up for re-election.
It takes a pretty extreme partisan to conclude that Gorsuch is a pretty reasonable candidate, therefore the GOP should distance themselves from getting him on the Court. If the process by which the GOP got him on the Court was going to hurt them, it would have hurt them in 2016.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m delighted that Republicans are the ones in power in the House, Senate, and White House. I don’t think I’d use the word “proud”, but that’s really beside the point. I didn’t claim Republicans had a popular ‘mandate’, which is what your weirdly personalized rant (you used the word ‘you’ like a dozen times) in #127 was about.
Three? I’m intrigued. Which are the 3 R seats ‘up for easy grabs’? Nevada’s an obvious target, but what are the other two? Flake’s Arizona seat is probably the next-most-obvious choice, but Democrats haven’t won a Senate race in Arizona since the 80’s. Is Texas your third? Utah? Mississippi? Or am I missing an obvious one somewhere?
Democrats would need a wave election ala '06 to have a reasonable chance – TX or NE is probably the next easiest (not easy at all) after NV and AZ.
I ask again,m was Trump president? Had the GOP ruled over a failed healthcare bill? Has Gorsuch made any SC decisions?
Things change. There was no reason for the republicans to run from the republican leadership in 2016, they were all huddled in the same tent, expecting a democratic victory. They needed to stand together as much as possible.
After a couple of years of republican rule. Where the republicans prove that they only know how to obstruct the process of governing, but are not capable of governing themselves, is when the party will split apart. That’s when there will be senators claiming that they would have voted for this more centrist judge that was liked and approved of by their party before he was nominated.
My point is that you are going to start seeing a pivot of republicans towards a more moderate stance, and in doing so, they are going to be rejecting the extreme stances of the GOP leadership, including partisan games like refusing to hold a vote on a qualified SC justice. Part of this rejection of the failed GOP leadership and move toward moderation will likely come in the form of claiming that they would have voted for Garland, had McConnell let them.
I assume that you would not be willing to make a bet of it, then?
You pulled a single line of my post, as if it were the line that you wished to respond to. As in that post, I was pointing out that they did not have a mandate, your disagreement with that post, and singling out a single line of it, implies that you do feel that they have a mandate. You implied that it didn’t matter what the people voted for, what people voted for was just a meaningless statistic. I disagree that election results are meaningless statistics, even if the rules of the game do mean that those with more votes are not always the ones who govern.
Etiquette? No. But it was a shocking departure from the norms of equal protection jurisprudence in the nation’s history.
Why are you sanguine about that breach of norms?
Let me spell it out for you: I don’t much care for the term ‘mandate’ or who has one or who doesn’t. It’s a totally subjective standard. Both parties tell themselves and the media that they have a ‘mandate’ after they win an election. It’s meaningless in my eyes, but whatever. If you want to quibble about it, that’s fine too. You’re free to strenuously object to the Republican’s claim of a ‘mandate’ all you want. You probably even have a pretty decent argument when you talk about the popular vote totals for President. You’ve got a less decent argument if we were to look at the popular vote totals for the House of Representatives, because Republicans actually won that one in 2016. But do you understand why the Senate vote totals are a particularly bad measure of ‘mandates’ / the will of the people? Do you understand that only 2/3 of the states even have a Senate race in a typical election year? Why anyone would try to use Senate vote totals in bolstering their argument about ‘the will of the people’ / ‘mandate’ is simply bizarre to me. It’s nonsensical. That’s why I picked out that particular line in your post. And 2016 was an especially-bad year for using the Senate vote totals as an argument against a ‘mandate’ because of the quirky California jungle-primary rules.
Hold up. If I understand correctly, they didn’t find any such right. They found that states lacked the right to distinguish between same-sex and opposite-sex marriages. Presumably a state could refuse to solemnize any marriages.
Finding that you can’t treat citizens differently without reason is not exactly a crazy thing to find, nor a violation of norms.
I disagree. I feel it was an entirely logical step following things like the legalization of interracial marriage.
Can two nine year olds marry?
No. Presumably you’d say there’s a good reason.
But throughout most of our nation’s history, we believed there was a good reason that two adult men could not marry each other.
The rejection of that belief was the violation of norms.
Then the GOP’s current violation of norms is an entirely logical step following the earlier violation of norms that the Democrats exhibited, such as the nominations of Estrada and Bork.
So, not judicial norms, just societal norms, is that what you’re saying? It’s unclear exactly what norm you’re talking about here.
If you’re saying that any time a court makes a decision that goes against any historical social norm it’s a violation of norms, that seems both true and trivial. If you’re making some other point, it’d help if you’d clarify exactly what norm you think is violated by this decision, and how that’s a nontrivial point.
Wasn’t that the key distinction between the Due Process argument and the Equal Protection argument? If you have a fundamental due process right to state sanctioned marriage, then the state can’t refuse to issue marriage licenses. If it’s an equal protection issue, then once the state gets into the marriage licensing business, it needs to treat people “equally.”
I think Obergefell is an equal protection case. But I have trouble telling. On the one hand: “The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.” That’s equal protection. On the other hand, “the Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States.” That’s due process.