Over the past couple of days, I've argued that the end of the standoff with the shutdown was a mistake and a mess, and that overall the situation is going quite well. This is not a defense of members of the Democratic caucus. I don't need to defend them or attack them because I'm mostly indifferent to them. I anticipate a period of half a dozen years or more during which nearly all of the current senators will need to be persuaded to adopt a completely different approach to policy or be excluded from elected office. Let's call it “Change” or “Purge”. For me, the period from March to today has been a big step forward. The way things were done during this shutdown was very different from what happened in March. And the way it ended – and here I know many people disagree with me – does not negate what has happened over the last five weeks, either in terms of changed behavior or in terms of what has been achieved. This is a multi-course treatment. The results of the first course were encouraging. So let's move on to the remaining nine.
Since I've been focusing on the concept of “Change or Clear” in this post, I'd like to be more specific about what that means. Of course, much of this is either characterological or a way of using power. This may be difficult to capture in general terms or outside the context of a specific political situation. But there are a number of things senators do or don't support that provide a clear indication of whether they are serious about meeting the challenge of the moment or pushing back against Trumpism.
Fifth: Extreme Gerrymandering Is Outlawed. A few things here require clarification. I say “extreme” gerrymandering. And it may sound like there's nothing wrong with me, or we should go along with some shenanigans. This is not entirely true. I say this because there is no objectively correct map. All legislative maps include solutions and benefits here or there. I add the word “extreme” more for realism reasons than for licensing reasons. But it is critical to have a federal legal framework that defines how maps can be legally drawn. They cannot be used for partisan advantage to disempower or empower one racial group over another or one region over another. Again, there are no perfect cards or perfect rules. But this cannot be everyone's entertainment. Because of the corrupt Republican majority on the court, everyone is now free. This may seem inappropriate or disingenuous as Democrats across the country are now rushing to gerrymander their maps. There is no contradiction. There cannot be one set of rules in one part of the country and another in another. This is an opportunity to articulate a much broader principle: Democrats cannot be held responsible for winning power and saving the republic while simultaneously being responsible for upholding a set of norms that the right has already destroyed. This is wrong. This not the way you think it should work if you are serious about using force and know what it takes. Every representative elected on a gerrymandered card must be committed to supporting real federal gerrymander laws. And it's a reminder of the central role of the filibuster and Supreme Court reform. Without the first, there is no federal law. And without the second, the law is meaningless, since it will simply be rejected by the corrupt Republican majority for some made-up reason.
I was thinking of various other things to add here. But this is more than enough to separate the senatorial wheat from the chaff. This is not an exhaustive list. It's not meant to be that way. This is a list to help people understand whether a senator or Senate candidate is at least ready to try curb Trumpism and chart a course forward for the American republic.
I tried to speak generally because I'm not trying to make a list of how to remake the country based on Josh's agenda. My goal here is rather to identify the underlying issues and help people think clearly about whether a given elected official is serious about addressing the issue. I would even go so far as to say that it might not be worth writing someone off simply because they disagree with one of these points. But if I were evaluating a candidate or senator for the Senate, I would say that if they reject one of these five checklist items, they would have the burden of providing a no-nonsense explanation of a foolproof way to remodel your home this doesn't require it. I really listen carefully because I don't have all the answers. But I doubt you can do it without these steps. I would sincerely like to hear an alternative to Supreme Court reform. I just don't think it exists. And if your answer is to just wave your hands and talk, leave or you will be kicked out of the office.
Fourth: Clearing the legal books. As we have seen over the past year, the US federal code is full of laws that assume that the sitting president generally supports the federal constitution, civil democracy and the interests of all American citizens. We now know that this is a dangerous assumption. There are many laws that give the president enormous powers if things get really weird. And the president must decide whether they are strange. In many ways, this is the dirty work of the corrupt Republican majority on the Supreme Court. But many laws are indeed too ambiguous. We need to change all these laws. This suggests the potential for various harms by weakening the presidency. There are times when you want the president to be able to act quickly and effectively in emergency situations. Laws will have to be revised to take this contrary danger into account. But now the balance is too much towards presidential power. The President cannot be allowed to use the US military (which most certainly includes the Guard) to overwhelm or effectively conquer states that do not support him politically. Can the president do this even with new laws? Maybe. But it should be abundantly clear to you that when this happens, the president is violating federal law as well as the Constitution.
Fifth: Extreme Gerrymandering Is Outlawed. A few things here require clarification. I say “extreme” gerrymandering. And it may sound like there's nothing wrong with me, or we should go along with some shenanigans. This is not entirely true. I say this because there is no objectively correct map. All legislative maps include solutions and benefits here or there. I add the word “extreme” more for realism reasons than for licensing reasons. But it is critical to have a federal legal framework that defines how maps can be legally drawn. They cannot be used for partisan advantage to disempower or empower one racial group over another or one region over another. Again, there are no perfect cards or perfect rules. But this cannot be everyone's entertainment. Because of the corrupt Republican majority on the court, everyone is now free. This may seem inappropriate or disingenuous as Democrats across the country are now rushing to gerrymander their maps. There is no contradiction. There cannot be one set of rules in one part of the country and another in another. This is an opportunity to articulate a much broader principle: Democrats cannot be held responsible for winning power and saving the republic while simultaneously being responsible for upholding a set of norms that the right has already destroyed. This is wrong. This not the way you think it should work if you are serious about using force and know what it takes. Every representative elected on a gerrymandered card must be committed to supporting real federal gerrymander laws. And it's a reminder of the central role of the filibuster and Supreme Court reform. Without the first, there is no federal law. And without the second, the law is meaningless, since it will simply be rejected by the corrupt Republican majority for some made-up reason.
I was thinking of various other things to add here. But this is more than enough to separate the senatorial wheat from the chaff. This is not an exhaustive list. It's not meant to be that way. This is a list to help people understand whether a senator or Senate candidate is at least ready to try curb Trumpism and chart a course forward for the American republic.
I tried to speak generally because I'm not trying to make a list of how to remake the country based on Josh's agenda. My goal here is rather to identify the underlying issues and help people think clearly about whether a given elected official is serious about addressing the issue. I would even go so far as to say that it might not be worth writing someone off simply because they disagree with one of these points. But if I were evaluating a candidate or senator for the Senate, I would say that if they reject one of these five checklist items, they would have the burden of providing a no-nonsense explanation of a foolproof way to remodel your home this doesn't require it. I really listen carefully because I don't have all the answers. But I doubt you can do it without these steps. I would sincerely like to hear an alternative to Supreme Court reform. I just don't think it exists. And if your answer is to just wave your hands and talk, leave or you will be kicked out of the office.
Third: Statehood. Making the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico states is not as important as points one and two. They are not prerequisites that stand in the way of anything else. But they are very important. The most important reason for the creation of the states of D.C. and Puerto Rico is that D.C. and Puerto Rico should actually be states. (In any other developed country, it would be strange if two jurisdictions arbitrarily did not have political rights like everyone else.) I lived in Washington from 1999 to 2004. It was a shame that I had no representation in Congress. But the harm was largely conditional and fundamental. In practice, life in Washington was not much different from life in Maryland or Virginia. What we've seen over the past year makes it clear that this is very real harm and disenfranchisement, not just a theoretical thing. A renegade president may treat the district and its citizens as conquered territory. The District of Columbia absolutely needs to be given sovereignty and the structural protections of statehood. Another problem is that turning D.C. and Puerto Rico into states is no easy task. very legal an opportunity to offset some of the Republicans' current structural advantage in the Senate. This is good as a matter of principle and good policy. Heavy drink? May be. But if you are not ready for this, I am sure you are not ready for many important things.
Fourth: Clearing the legal books. As we have seen over the past year, the US federal code is full of laws that assume that the sitting president generally supports the federal constitution, civil democracy and the interests of all American citizens. We now know that this is a dangerous assumption. There are many laws that give the president enormous powers if things get really weird. And the president must decide whether they are strange. In many ways, this is the dirty work of the corrupt Republican majority on the Supreme Court. But many laws are indeed too ambiguous. We need to change all these laws. This suggests the potential for various harms by weakening the presidency. There are times when you want the president to be able to act quickly and effectively in emergency situations. Laws will have to be revised to take this contrary danger into account. But now the balance is too much towards presidential power. The President cannot be allowed to use the US military (which most certainly includes the Guard) to overwhelm or effectively conquer states that do not support him politically. Can the president do this even with new laws? Maybe. But it should be abundantly clear to you that when this happens, the president is violating federal law as well as the Constitution.
Fifth: Extreme Gerrymandering Is Outlawed. A few things here require clarification. I say “extreme” gerrymandering. And it may sound like there's nothing wrong with me, or we should go along with some shenanigans. This is not entirely true. I say this because there is no objectively correct map. All legislative maps include solutions and benefits here or there. I add the word “extreme” more for realism reasons than for licensing reasons. But it is critical to have a federal legal framework that defines how maps can be legally drawn. They cannot be used for partisan advantage to disempower or empower one racial group over another or one region over another. Again, there are no perfect cards or perfect rules. But this cannot be everyone's entertainment. Because of the corrupt Republican majority on the court, everyone is now free. This may seem inappropriate or disingenuous as Democrats across the country are now rushing to gerrymander their maps. There is no contradiction. There cannot be one set of rules in one part of the country and another in another. This is an opportunity to articulate a much broader principle: Democrats cannot be held responsible for winning power and saving the republic while simultaneously being responsible for upholding a set of norms that the right has already destroyed. This is wrong. This not the way you think it should work if you are serious about using force and know what it takes. Every representative elected on a gerrymandered card must be committed to supporting real federal gerrymander laws. And it's a reminder of the central role of the filibuster and Supreme Court reform. Without the first, there is no federal law. And without the second, the law is meaningless, since it will simply be rejected by the corrupt Republican majority for some made-up reason.
I was thinking of various other things to add here. But this is more than enough to separate the senatorial wheat from the chaff. This is not an exhaustive list. It's not meant to be that way. This is a list to help people understand whether a senator or Senate candidate is at least ready to try curb Trumpism and chart a course forward for the American republic.
I tried to speak generally because I'm not trying to make a list of how to remake the country based on Josh's agenda. My goal here is rather to identify the underlying issues and help people think clearly about whether a given elected official is serious about addressing the issue. I would even go so far as to say that it might not be worth writing someone off simply because they disagree with one of these points. But if I were evaluating a candidate or senator for the Senate, I would say that if they reject one of these five checklist items, they would have the burden of providing a no-nonsense explanation of a foolproof way to remodel your home this doesn't require it. I really listen carefully because I don't have all the answers. But I doubt you can do it without these steps. I would sincerely like to hear an alternative to Supreme Court reform. I just don't think it exists. And if your answer is to just wave your hands and talk, leave or you will be kicked out of the office.
From here the list gets fuzzier. But this only shows the importance of the first two questions. I would almost say that your list could be limited to these two things. This is not all that is needed. But the answers to these two questions will give you a pretty good idea of where someone will stand on all other counts. However, the rest is important.
Third: Statehood. Making the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico states is not as important as points one and two. They are not prerequisites that stand in the way of anything else. But they are very important. The most important reason for the creation of the states of D.C. and Puerto Rico is that D.C. and Puerto Rico should actually be states. (In any other developed country, it would be strange if two jurisdictions arbitrarily did not have political rights like everyone else.) I lived in Washington from 1999 to 2004. It was a shame that I had no representation in Congress. But the harm was largely conditional and fundamental. In practice, life in Washington was not much different from life in Maryland or Virginia. What we've seen over the past year makes it clear that this is very real harm and disenfranchisement, not just a theoretical thing. A renegade president may treat the district and its citizens as conquered territory. The District of Columbia absolutely needs to be given sovereignty and the structural protections of statehood. Another problem is that turning D.C. and Puerto Rico into states is no easy task. very legal an opportunity to offset some of the Republicans' current structural advantage in the Senate. This is good as a matter of principle and good policy. Heavy drink? May be. But if you are not ready for this, I am sure you are not ready for many important things.
Fourth: Clearing the legal books. As we have seen over the past year, the US federal code is full of laws that assume that the sitting president generally supports the federal constitution, civil democracy and the interests of all American citizens. We now know that this is a dangerous assumption. There are many laws that give the president enormous powers if things get really weird. And the president must decide whether they are strange. In many ways, this is the dirty work of the corrupt Republican majority on the Supreme Court. But many laws are indeed too ambiguous. We need to change all these laws. This suggests the potential for various harms by weakening the presidency. There are times when you want the president to be able to act quickly and effectively in emergency situations. Laws will have to be revised to take this contrary danger into account. But now the balance is too much towards presidential power. The President cannot be allowed to use the US military (which most certainly includes the Guard) to overwhelm or effectively conquer states that do not support him politically. Can the president do this even with new laws? Maybe. But it should be abundantly clear to you that when this happens, the president is violating federal law as well as the Constitution.
Fifth: Extreme Gerrymandering Is Outlawed. A few things here require clarification. I say “extreme” gerrymandering. And it may sound like there's nothing wrong with me, or we should go along with some shenanigans. This is not entirely true. I say this because there is no objectively correct map. All legislative maps include solutions and benefits here or there. I add the word “extreme” more for realism reasons than for licensing reasons. But it is critical to have a federal legal framework that defines how maps can be legally drawn. They cannot be used for partisan advantage to disempower or empower one racial group over another or one region over another. Again, there are no perfect cards or perfect rules. But this cannot be everyone's entertainment. Because of the corrupt Republican majority on the court, everyone is now free. This may seem inappropriate or disingenuous as Democrats across the country are now rushing to gerrymander their maps. There is no contradiction. There cannot be one set of rules in one part of the country and another in another. This is an opportunity to articulate a much broader principle: Democrats cannot be held responsible for winning power and saving the republic while simultaneously being responsible for upholding a set of norms that the right has already destroyed. This is wrong. This not the way you think it should work if you are serious about using force and know what it takes. Every representative elected on a gerrymandered card must be committed to supporting real federal gerrymander laws. And it's a reminder of the central role of the filibuster and Supreme Court reform. Without the first, there is no federal law. And without the second, the law is meaningless, since it will simply be rejected by the corrupt Republican majority for some made-up reason.
I was thinking of various other things to add here. But this is more than enough to separate the senatorial wheat from the chaff. This is not an exhaustive list. It's not meant to be that way. This is a list to help people understand whether a senator or Senate candidate is at least ready to try curb Trumpism and chart a course forward for the American republic.
I tried to speak generally because I'm not trying to make a list of how to remake the country based on Josh's agenda. My goal here is rather to identify the underlying issues and help people think clearly about whether a given elected official is serious about addressing the issue. I would even go so far as to say that it might not be worth writing someone off simply because they disagree with one of these points. But if I were evaluating a candidate or senator for the Senate, I would say that if they reject one of these five checklist items, they would have the burden of providing a no-nonsense explanation of a foolproof way to remodel your home this doesn't require it. I really listen carefully because I don't have all the answers. But I doubt you can do it without these steps. I would sincerely like to hear an alternative to Supreme Court reform. I just don't think it exists. And if your answer is to just wave your hands and talk, leave or you will be kicked out of the office.
Second: reform of the Supreme Court. I said above that some decisions are difficult. They contradict much of what we have been taught in political life. This is one of them. Only in the last three or four years have I come to the necessity of this, and it is still sometimes difficult to come to my senses. But it's important. With a filibuster, no broader anti-authoritarian reform and no modernization of the home is possible. It's the same with the Supreme Court. The current Republican majority is completely corrupt and has stolen the Constitution. They freed themselves not only from precedent, but from any coherent or coherent theory of the Constitution, however erroneous. The purpose of a high court is not to rule the country. This means adjudicating issues of constitutional ambiguity in a fair and generally consistent manner. He now engages in purely results-oriented reasoning, mixing and matching doctrines and modes of jurisprudence depending on his desired ends, with the goal of promoting autocratic rule. and Republican rule. This is the essence of corruption. Passing laws doesn't matter if they can and will be repealed simply because six lifetime appointees don't like them. This is a perversion of the constitutional order. I know this is hard for a lot of people to swallow. This is not easy for me either. But this is required by the circumstances of the situation and loyalty to the Constitution. I will not go into details of specific reforms here. There are different ways to do this. This can be judged by the final result. If you are in favor of maintaining the absolute control of the corrupt Republican majority over the political and party leadership of the country, you should resign from office or be expelled from it.
From here the list gets fuzzier. But this only shows the importance of the first two questions. I would almost say that your list could be limited to these two things. This is not all that is needed. But the answers to these two questions will give you a pretty good idea of where someone will stand on all other counts. However, the rest is important.
Third: Statehood. Making the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico states is not as important as points one and two. They are not prerequisites that stand in the way of anything else. But they are very important. The most important reason for the creation of the states of D.C. and Puerto Rico is that D.C. and Puerto Rico should actually be states. (In any other developed country, it would be strange if two jurisdictions arbitrarily did not have political rights like everyone else.) I lived in Washington from 1999 to 2004. It was a shame that I had no representation in Congress. But the harm was largely conditional and fundamental. In practice, life in Washington was not much different from life in Maryland or Virginia. What we've seen over the past year makes it clear that this is very real harm and disenfranchisement, not just a theoretical thing. A renegade president may treat the district and its citizens as conquered territory. The District of Columbia absolutely needs to be given sovereignty and the structural protections of statehood. Another problem is that turning D.C. and Puerto Rico into states is no easy task. very legal an opportunity to offset some of the Republicans' current structural advantage in the Senate. This is good as a matter of principle and good policy. Heavy drink? May be. But if you are not ready for this, I am sure you are not ready for many important things.
Fourth: Clearing the legal books. As we have seen over the past year, the US federal code is full of laws that assume that the sitting president generally supports the federal constitution, civil democracy and the interests of all American citizens. We now know that this is a dangerous assumption. There are many laws that give the president enormous powers if things get really weird. And the president must decide whether they are strange. In many ways, this is the dirty work of the corrupt Republican majority on the Supreme Court. But many laws are indeed too ambiguous. We need to change all these laws. This suggests the potential for various harms by weakening the presidency. There are times when you want the president to be able to act quickly and effectively in emergency situations. Laws will have to be revised to take this contrary danger into account. But now the balance is too much towards presidential power. The President cannot be allowed to use the US military (which most certainly includes the Guard) to overwhelm or effectively conquer states that do not support him politically. Can the president do this even with new laws? Maybe. But it should be abundantly clear to you that when this happens, the president is violating federal law as well as the Constitution.
Fifth: Extreme Gerrymandering Is Outlawed. A few things here require clarification. I say “extreme” gerrymandering. And it may sound like there's nothing wrong with me, or we should go along with some shenanigans. This is not entirely true. I say this because there is no objectively correct map. All legislative maps include solutions and benefits here or there. I add the word “extreme” more for realism reasons than for licensing reasons. But it is critical to have a federal legal framework that defines how maps can be legally drawn. They cannot be used for partisan advantage to disempower or empower one racial group over another or one region over another. Again, there are no perfect cards or perfect rules. But this cannot be everyone's entertainment. Because of the corrupt Republican majority on the court, everyone is now free. This may seem inappropriate or disingenuous as Democrats across the country are now rushing to gerrymander their maps. There is no contradiction. There cannot be one set of rules in one part of the country and another in another. This is an opportunity to articulate a much broader principle: Democrats cannot be held responsible for winning power and saving the republic while simultaneously being responsible for upholding a set of norms that the right has already destroyed. This is wrong. This not the way you think it should work if you are serious about using force and know what it takes. Every representative elected on a gerrymandered card must be committed to supporting real federal gerrymander laws. And it's a reminder of the central role of the filibuster and Supreme Court reform. Without the first, there is no federal law. And without the second, the law is meaningless, since it will simply be rejected by the corrupt Republican majority for some made-up reason.
I was thinking of various other things to add here. But this is more than enough to separate the senatorial wheat from the chaff. This is not an exhaustive list. It's not meant to be that way. This is a list to help people understand whether a senator or Senate candidate is at least ready to try curb Trumpism and chart a course forward for the American republic.
I tried to speak generally because I'm not trying to make a list of how to remake the country based on Josh's agenda. My goal here is rather to identify the underlying issues and help people think clearly about whether a given elected official is serious about addressing the issue. I would even go so far as to say that it might not be worth writing someone off simply because they disagree with one of these points. But if I were evaluating a candidate or senator for the Senate, I would say that if they reject one of these five checklist items, they would have the burden of providing a no-nonsense explanation of a foolproof way to remodel your home this doesn't require it. I really listen carefully because I don't have all the answers. But I doubt you can do it without these steps. I would sincerely like to hear an alternative to Supreme Court reform. I just don't think it exists. And if your answer is to just wave your hands and talk, leave or you will be kicked out of the office.
First: the filibuster. If you support maintaining the filibuster, you are not serious about moving the country forward in any positive direction. Unless you are a Democratic senator from a red state holding a seat that probably no one else can fill, you should be absolutely certain that the intention is to remove you from office at the first opportunity. No legislation needed to modernize the home can be implemented with a filibuster. If you support the filibuster, it means your response to Trumpite autocracy is to do nothing and hope for the best. This is unacceptable and you need to leave. What's so important about the filibuster issue isn't just how important it is in itself. The point is that there is no reason not to do this. The filibuster is a historical accident that perverts how the Constitution is supposed to work. There are a number of things that the moment demands that greatly hinder our civic acculturation. They may not have been justified in normal times, but now they are justified. A filibuster is nothing like that. It must be a gift. This is bad in every way. If you support the filibuster, you are either a fraud, haven't taken the situation seriously, or don't care. None of these three possibilities are acceptable.
Second: reform of the Supreme Court. I said above that some decisions are difficult. They contradict much of what we have been taught in political life. This is one of them. Only in the last three or four years have I come to the necessity of this, and it is still sometimes difficult to come to my senses. But it's important. With a filibuster, no broader anti-authoritarian reform and no modernization of the home is possible. It's the same with the Supreme Court. The current Republican majority is completely corrupt and has stolen the Constitution. They freed themselves not only from precedent, but from any coherent or coherent theory of the Constitution, however erroneous. The purpose of a high court is not to rule the country. This means adjudicating issues of constitutional ambiguity in a fair and generally consistent manner. He now engages in purely results-oriented reasoning, mixing and matching doctrines and modes of jurisprudence depending on his desired ends, with the goal of promoting autocratic rule. and Republican rule. This is the essence of corruption. Passing laws doesn't matter if they can and will be repealed simply because six lifetime appointees don't like them. This is a perversion of the constitutional order. I know this is hard for a lot of people to swallow. This is not easy for me either. But this is required by the circumstances of the situation and loyalty to the Constitution. I will not go into details of specific reforms here. There are different ways to do this. This can be judged by the final result. If you are in favor of maintaining the absolute control of the corrupt Republican majority over the political and party leadership of the country, you should resign from office or be expelled from it.
From here the list gets fuzzier. But this only shows the importance of the first two questions. I would almost say that your list could be limited to these two things. This is not all that is needed. But the answers to these two questions will give you a pretty good idea of where someone will stand on all other counts. However, the rest is important.
Third: Statehood. Making the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico states is not as important as points one and two. They are not prerequisites that stand in the way of anything else. But they are very important. The most important reason for the creation of the states of D.C. and Puerto Rico is that D.C. and Puerto Rico should actually be states. (In any other developed country, it would be strange if two jurisdictions arbitrarily did not have political rights like everyone else.) I lived in Washington from 1999 to 2004. It was a shame that I had no representation in Congress. But the harm was largely conditional and fundamental. In practice, life in Washington was not much different from life in Maryland or Virginia. What we've seen over the past year makes it clear that this is very real harm and disenfranchisement, not just a theoretical thing. A renegade president may treat the district and its citizens as conquered territory. The District of Columbia absolutely needs to be given sovereignty and the structural protections of statehood. Another problem is that turning D.C. and Puerto Rico into states is no easy task. very legal an opportunity to offset some of the Republicans' current structural advantage in the Senate. This is good as a matter of principle and good policy. Heavy drink? May be. But if you are not ready for this, I am sure you are not ready for many important things.
Fourth: Clearing the legal books. As we have seen over the past year, the US federal code is full of laws that assume that the sitting president generally supports the federal constitution, civil democracy and the interests of all American citizens. We now know that this is a dangerous assumption. There are many laws that give the president enormous powers if things get really weird. And the president must decide whether they are strange. In many ways, this is the dirty work of the corrupt Republican majority on the Supreme Court. But many laws are indeed too ambiguous. We need to change all these laws. This suggests the potential for various harms by weakening the presidency. There are times when you want the president to be able to act quickly and effectively in emergency situations. Laws will have to be revised to take this contrary danger into account. But now the balance is too much towards presidential power. The President cannot be allowed to use the US military (which most certainly includes the Guard) to overwhelm or effectively conquer states that do not support him politically. Can the president do this even with new laws? Maybe. But it should be abundantly clear to you that when this happens, the president is violating federal law as well as the Constitution.
Fifth: Extreme Gerrymandering Is Outlawed. A few things here require clarification. I say “extreme” gerrymandering. And it may sound like there's nothing wrong with me, or we should go along with some shenanigans. This is not entirely true. I say this because there is no objectively correct map. All legislative maps include solutions and benefits here or there. I add the word “extreme” more for realism reasons than for licensing reasons. But it is critical to have a federal legal framework that defines how maps can be legally drawn. They cannot be used for partisan advantage to disempower or empower one racial group over another or one region over another. Again, there are no perfect cards or perfect rules. But this cannot be everyone's entertainment. Because of the corrupt Republican majority on the court, everyone is now free. This may seem inappropriate or disingenuous as Democrats across the country are now rushing to gerrymander their maps. There is no contradiction. There cannot be one set of rules in one part of the country and another in another. This is an opportunity to articulate a much broader principle: Democrats cannot be held responsible for winning power and saving the republic while simultaneously being responsible for upholding a set of norms that the right has already destroyed. This is wrong. This not the way you think it should work if you are serious about using force and know what it takes. Every representative elected on a gerrymandered card must be committed to supporting real federal gerrymander laws. And it's a reminder of the central role of the filibuster and Supreme Court reform. Without the first, there is no federal law. And without the second, the law is meaningless, since it will simply be rejected by the corrupt Republican majority for some made-up reason.
I was thinking of various other things to add here. But this is more than enough to separate the senatorial wheat from the chaff. This is not an exhaustive list. It's not meant to be that way. This is a list to help people understand whether a senator or Senate candidate is at least ready to try curb Trumpism and chart a course forward for the American republic.
I tried to speak generally because I'm not trying to make a list of how to remake the country based on Josh's agenda. My goal here is rather to identify the underlying issues and help people think clearly about whether a given elected official is serious about addressing the issue. I would even go so far as to say that it might not be worth writing someone off simply because they disagree with one of these points. But if I were evaluating a candidate or senator for the Senate, I would say that if they reject one of these five checklist items, they would have the burden of providing a no-nonsense explanation of a foolproof way to remodel your home this doesn't require it. I really listen carefully because I don't have all the answers. But I doubt you can do it without these steps. I would sincerely like to hear an alternative to Supreme Court reform. I just don't think it exists. And if your answer is to just wave your hands and talk, leave or you will be kicked out of the office.
What does it mean? I think of it this way: you live in a disaster area. In the future, floods and hurricanes will be twice as severe and three times more frequent. So you will have to modernize the house (this basically means legislation) and develop the habit of dealing with natural disasters (this means their approach to power). So what does it matter in this context? Here are five things I wish every Democratic senator or candidate would ask and answer. Think about it another way: you are new management coming in to turn around a failing company. You want to talk to every employee immediately after you take over to see if they are part of the solution or part of the problem. This is a status interview. Here are five questions.
First: the filibuster. If you support maintaining the filibuster, you are not serious about moving the country forward in any positive direction. Unless you are a Democratic senator from a red state holding a seat that probably no one else can fill, you should be absolutely certain that the intention is to remove you from office at the first opportunity. No legislation needed to modernize the home can be implemented with a filibuster. If you support the filibuster, it means your response to Trumpite autocracy is to do nothing and hope for the best. This is unacceptable and you need to leave. What's so important about the filibuster issue isn't just how important it is in itself. The point is that there is no reason not to do this. The filibuster is a historical accident that perverts how the Constitution is supposed to work. There are a number of things that the moment demands that greatly hinder our civic acculturation. They may not have been justified in normal times, but now they are justified. A filibuster is nothing like that. It must be a gift. This is bad in every way. If you support the filibuster, you are either a fraud, haven't taken the situation seriously, or don't care. None of these three possibilities are acceptable.
Second: reform of the Supreme Court. I said above that some decisions are difficult. They contradict much of what we have been taught in political life. This is one of them. Only in the last three or four years have I come to the necessity of this, and it is still sometimes difficult to come to my senses. But it's important. With a filibuster, no broader anti-authoritarian reform and no modernization of the home is possible. It's the same with the Supreme Court. The current Republican majority is completely corrupt and has stolen the Constitution. They freed themselves not only from precedent, but from any coherent or coherent theory of the Constitution, however erroneous. The purpose of a high court is not to rule the country. This means adjudicating issues of constitutional ambiguity in a fair and generally consistent manner. He now engages in purely results-oriented reasoning, mixing and matching doctrines and modes of jurisprudence depending on his desired ends, with the goal of promoting autocratic rule. and Republican rule. This is the essence of corruption. Passing laws doesn't matter if they can and will be repealed simply because six lifetime appointees don't like them. This is a perversion of the constitutional order. I know this is hard for a lot of people to swallow. This is not easy for me either. But this is required by the circumstances of the situation and loyalty to the Constitution. I will not go into details of specific reforms here. There are different ways to do this. This can be judged by the final result. If you are in favor of maintaining the absolute control of the corrupt Republican majority over the political and party leadership of the country, you should resign from office or be expelled from it.
From here the list gets fuzzier. But this only shows the importance of the first two questions. I would almost say that your list could be limited to these two things. This is not all that is needed. But the answers to these two questions will give you a pretty good idea of where someone will stand on all other counts. However, the rest is important.
Third: Statehood. Making the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico states is not as important as points one and two. They are not prerequisites that stand in the way of anything else. But they are very important. The most important reason for the creation of the states of D.C. and Puerto Rico is that D.C. and Puerto Rico should actually be states. (In any other developed country, it would be strange if two jurisdictions arbitrarily did not have political rights like everyone else.) I lived in Washington from 1999 to 2004. It was a shame that I had no representation in Congress. But the harm was largely conditional and fundamental. In practice, life in Washington was not much different from life in Maryland or Virginia. What we've seen over the past year makes it clear that this is very real harm and disenfranchisement, not just a theoretical thing. A renegade president may treat the district and its citizens as conquered territory. The District of Columbia absolutely needs to be given sovereignty and the structural protections of statehood. Another problem is that turning D.C. and Puerto Rico into states is no easy task. very legal an opportunity to offset some of the Republicans' current structural advantage in the Senate. This is good as a matter of principle and good policy. Heavy drink? May be. But if you are not ready for this, I am sure you are not ready for many important things.
Fourth: Clearing the legal books. As we have seen over the past year, the US federal code is full of laws that assume that the sitting president generally supports the federal constitution, civil democracy and the interests of all American citizens. We now know that this is a dangerous assumption. There are many laws that give the president enormous powers if things get really weird. And the president must decide whether they are strange. In many ways, this is the dirty work of the corrupt Republican majority on the Supreme Court. But many laws are indeed too ambiguous. We need to change all these laws. This suggests the potential for various harms by weakening the presidency. There are times when you want the president to be able to act quickly and effectively in emergency situations. Laws will have to be revised to take this contrary danger into account. But now the balance is too much towards presidential power. The President cannot be allowed to use the US military (which most certainly includes the Guard) to overwhelm or effectively conquer states that do not support him politically. Can the president do this even with new laws? Maybe. But it should be abundantly clear to you that when this happens, the president is violating federal law as well as the Constitution.
Fifth: Extreme Gerrymandering Is Outlawed. A few things here require clarification. I say “extreme” gerrymandering. And it may sound like there's nothing wrong with me, or we should go along with some shenanigans. This is not entirely true. I say this because there is no objectively correct map. All legislative maps include solutions and benefits here or there. I add the word “extreme” more for realism reasons than for licensing reasons. But it is critical to have a federal legal framework that defines how maps can be legally drawn. They cannot be used for partisan advantage to disempower or empower one racial group over another or one region over another. Again, there are no perfect cards or perfect rules. But this cannot be everyone's entertainment. Because of the corrupt Republican majority on the court, everyone is now free. This may seem inappropriate or disingenuous as Democrats across the country are now rushing to gerrymander their maps. There is no contradiction. There cannot be one set of rules in one part of the country and another in another. This is an opportunity to articulate a much broader principle: Democrats cannot be held responsible for winning power and saving the republic while simultaneously being responsible for upholding a set of norms that the right has already destroyed. This is wrong. This not the way you think it should work if you are serious about using force and know what it takes. Every representative elected on a gerrymandered card must be committed to supporting real federal gerrymander laws. And it's a reminder of the central role of the filibuster and Supreme Court reform. Without the first, there is no federal law. And without the second, the law is meaningless, since it will simply be rejected by the corrupt Republican majority for some made-up reason.
I was thinking of various other things to add here. But this is more than enough to separate the senatorial wheat from the chaff. This is not an exhaustive list. It's not meant to be that way. This is a list to help people understand whether a senator or Senate candidate is at least ready to try curb Trumpism and chart a course forward for the American republic.
I tried to speak generally because I'm not trying to make a list of how to remake the country based on Josh's agenda. My goal here is rather to identify the underlying issues and help people think clearly about whether a given elected official is serious about addressing the issue. I would even go so far as to say that it might not be worth writing someone off simply because they disagree with one of these points. But if I were evaluating a candidate or senator for the Senate, I would say that if they reject one of these five checklist items, they would have the burden of providing a no-nonsense explanation of a foolproof way to remodel your home this doesn't require it. I really listen carefully because I don't have all the answers. But I doubt you can do it without these steps. I would sincerely like to hear an alternative to Supreme Court reform. I just don't think it exists. And if your answer is to just wave your hands and talk, leave or you will be kicked out of the office.
What does it mean? I think of it this way: you live in a disaster area. In the future, floods and hurricanes will be twice as severe and three times more frequent. So you will have to modernize the house (this basically means legislation) and develop the habit of dealing with natural disasters (this means their approach to power). So what does it matter in this context? Here are five things I wish every Democratic senator or candidate would ask and answer. Think about it another way: you are new management coming in to turn around a failing company. You want to talk to every employee immediately after you take over to see if they are part of the solution or part of the problem. This is a status interview. Here are five questions.
First: the filibuster. If you support maintaining the filibuster, you are not serious about moving the country forward in any positive direction. Unless you are a Democratic senator from a red state holding a seat that probably no one else can fill, you should be absolutely certain that the intention is to remove you from office at the first opportunity. No legislation needed to modernize the home can be implemented with a filibuster. If you support the filibuster, it means your response to Trumpite autocracy is to do nothing and hope for the best. This is unacceptable and you need to leave. What's so important about the filibuster issue isn't just how important it is in itself. The point is that there is no reason not to do this. The filibuster is a historical accident that perverts how the Constitution is supposed to work. There are a number of things that the moment demands that greatly hinder our civic acculturation. They may not have been justified in normal times, but now they are justified. A filibuster is nothing like that. It must be a gift. This is bad in every way. If you support the filibuster, you are either a fraud, haven't taken the situation seriously, or don't care. None of these three possibilities are acceptable.
Second: reform of the Supreme Court. I said above that some decisions are difficult. They contradict much of what we have been taught in political life. This is one of them. Only in the last three or four years have I come to the necessity of this, and it is still sometimes difficult to come to my senses. But it's important. With a filibuster, no broader anti-authoritarian reform and no modernization of the home is possible. It's the same with the Supreme Court. The current Republican majority is completely corrupt and has stolen the Constitution. They freed themselves not only from precedent, but from any coherent or coherent theory of the Constitution, however erroneous. The purpose of a high court is not to rule the country. This means adjudicating issues of constitutional ambiguity in a fair and generally consistent manner. He now engages in purely results-oriented reasoning, mixing and matching doctrines and modes of jurisprudence depending on his desired ends, with the goal of promoting autocratic rule. and Republican rule. This is the essence of corruption. Passing laws doesn't matter if they can and will be repealed simply because six lifetime appointees don't like them. This is a perversion of the constitutional order. I know this is hard for a lot of people to swallow. This is not easy for me either. But this is required by the circumstances of the situation and loyalty to the Constitution. I will not go into details of specific reforms here. There are different ways to do this. This can be judged by the final result. If you are in favor of maintaining the absolute control of the corrupt Republican majority over the political and party leadership of the country, you should resign from office or be expelled from it.
From here the list gets fuzzier. But this only shows the importance of the first two questions. I would almost say that your list could be limited to these two things. This is not all that is needed. But the answers to these two questions will give you a pretty good idea of where someone will stand on all other counts. However, the rest is important.
Third: Statehood. Making the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico states is not as important as points one and two. They are not prerequisites that stand in the way of anything else. But they are very important. The most important reason for the creation of the states of D.C. and Puerto Rico is that D.C. and Puerto Rico should actually be states. (In any other developed country, it would be strange if two jurisdictions arbitrarily did not have political rights like everyone else.) I lived in Washington from 1999 to 2004. It was a shame that I had no representation in Congress. But the harm was largely conditional and fundamental. In practice, life in Washington was not much different from life in Maryland or Virginia. What we've seen over the past year makes it clear that this is very real harm and disenfranchisement, not just a theoretical thing. A renegade president may treat the district and its citizens as conquered territory. The District of Columbia absolutely needs to be given sovereignty and the structural protections of statehood. Another problem is that turning D.C. and Puerto Rico into states is no easy task. very legal an opportunity to offset some of the Republicans' current structural advantage in the Senate. This is good as a matter of principle and good policy. Heavy drink? May be. But if you are not ready for this, I am sure you are not ready for many important things.
Fourth: Clearing the legal books. As we have seen over the past year, the US federal code is full of laws that assume that the sitting president generally supports the federal constitution, civil democracy and the interests of all American citizens. We now know that this is a dangerous assumption. There are many laws that give the president enormous powers if things get really weird. And the president must decide whether they are strange. In many ways, this is the dirty work of the corrupt Republican majority on the Supreme Court. But many laws are indeed too ambiguous. We need to change all these laws. This suggests the potential for various harms by weakening the presidency. There are times when you want the president to be able to act quickly and effectively in emergency situations. Laws will have to be revised to take this contrary danger into account. But now the balance is too much towards presidential power. The President cannot be allowed to use the US military (which most certainly includes the Guard) to overwhelm or effectively conquer states that do not support him politically. Can the president do this even with new laws? Maybe. But it should be abundantly clear to you that when this happens, the president is violating federal law as well as the Constitution.
Fifth: Extreme Gerrymandering Is Outlawed. A few things here require clarification. I say “extreme” gerrymandering. And it may sound like there's nothing wrong with me, or we should go along with some shenanigans. This is not entirely true. I say this because there is no objectively correct map. All legislative maps include solutions and benefits here or there. I add the word “extreme” more for realism reasons than for licensing reasons. But it is critical to have a federal legal framework that defines how maps can be legally drawn. They cannot be used for partisan advantage to disempower or empower one racial group over another or one region over another. Again, there are no perfect cards or perfect rules. But this cannot be everyone's entertainment. Because of the corrupt Republican majority on the court, everyone is now free. This may seem inappropriate or disingenuous as Democrats across the country are now rushing to gerrymander their maps. There is no contradiction. There cannot be one set of rules in one part of the country and another in another. This is an opportunity to articulate a much broader principle: Democrats cannot be held responsible for winning power and saving the republic while simultaneously being responsible for upholding a set of norms that the right has already destroyed. This is wrong. This not the way you think it should work if you are serious about using force and know what it takes. Every representative elected on a gerrymandered card must be committed to supporting real federal gerrymander laws. And it's a reminder of the central role of the filibuster and Supreme Court reform. Without the first, there is no federal law. And without the second, the law is meaningless, since it will simply be rejected by the corrupt Republican majority for some made-up reason.
I was thinking of various other things to add here. But this is more than enough to separate the senatorial wheat from the chaff. This is not an exhaustive list. It's not meant to be that way. This is a list to help people understand whether a senator or Senate candidate is at least ready to try curb Trumpism and chart a course forward for the American republic.
I tried to speak generally because I'm not trying to make a list of how to remake the country based on Josh's agenda. My goal here is rather to identify the underlying issues and help people think clearly about whether a given elected official is serious about addressing the issue. I would even go so far as to say that it might not be worth writing someone off simply because they disagree with one of these points. But if I were evaluating a candidate or senator for the Senate, I would say that if they reject one of these five checklist items, they would have the burden of providing a no-nonsense explanation of a foolproof way to remodel your home this doesn't require it. I really listen carefully because I don't have all the answers. But I doubt you can do it without these steps. I would sincerely like to hear an alternative to Supreme Court reform. I just don't think it exists. And if your answer is to just wave your hands and talk, leave or you will be kicked out of the office.
