Not all ideas lend themselves to extended discussion, at least by me, and that truth applies to this blog. I have been collecting just such ideas for some time, and now is the time to set them forth. Some others reflect more recent developments.
I begin locally. At the suggestion of a friend, I attended a small gathering held on behalf of Michael Harris, a 37-year-old, District 3 candidate for Las Cruces City Council. I was told that he is a very nice person, and so he appears to be, but “nice” to me means anodyne, manageable. He has served on a number of committees and knows a great deal. When he talks, however, his possession of the facts gets in the way of coherence and sometimes relevance; focus is a problem. His website offers sensible positions, but his big concern is not the homeless, drugs, or crime—he does not even mention the police—, but vehicular traffic.
The police should be an issue. LCPD Chief Jeremy Story favors limitations on cash bail relief, which would disproportionately affect the poor; stricter guidelines for sentencing minors; and no fewer than five military-style SWAT vehicles. (Several elected officials—Cassie McClure, Joanne Ferrary, and Nathan Small—have said that they share my concerns about those vehicles and promised to inquire about them, as I have done, but I have heard nothing from them in months. Someone or everyone is stonewalling—an ominous sign when protests might be labeled as insurrections.) A recent recruitment film shows officers pursuing people—real he-man stuff to attract young machos to police our community. Despite some sprinkling of friendly LCPD engagements, Story’s priorities favor methods of arrest and detention, not prevention. If he has supported any police reform after the killings which have cost the city almost $25 million in settlements in the past half decade, he has not said so, much less said what those reforms are.
Eyes are, as always, on the Supreme Court and its activist decisions which affect the electorate, whether the matter is gerrymandering, mail-in ballots, or ID requirements, among others. My guess is that most, if not all, election-related cases—the Louisiana redistricting case, for one—will be decided in favor of Republican interests. An obvious reason is that SCOTUS has been increasingly tending to the right and conducting a reactionary coup undoing decades of bipartisan or nonpartisan precedents which respect the Constitution. A less obvious but potent reason is that the conservative majority has a direct interest in the outcome of midterm elections. If Democrats retake both chambers of Congress, they are likely to attempt difficult reforms of SCOTUS by enlarging the number of justices and thereby end reactionary rule on the court.
Another remedy is shorter terms. The Constitution stipulates that Supreme Court justices serve for life, so an amendment has seemed to be the only way to effect shorter terms. The current idea for such an amendment is staggered 18-year terms. An alternative which avoids the delays, difficulties, and likely defeat of this proposed amendment is legislation setting a minimum age for the seat on the Court at, say, 65. Current mortality rates suggest that justices would serve about 18 years before dying in their early 80s. Minimum age would be no anomaly. The Constitution itself applies age requirements to service in the House (25 years), the Senate (30 years), and the White House (35 years). A minimum age for justices of the Supreme Court might ensure that nominees have a long record of judicial experience. A minimum age for district (45 or 50 years) and appellate (55 or 60 years) court justices would also be desirable, but to limit their lifetime terms to, say, 18 years would require a constitutional amendment.
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s recently published memoir, Listening to the Law, justifies her middle name; a coney is a rabbit, a species not noted for intelligence or courage. Addressing abortion in the Roe v. Wade/Dobbs v. Jackson decision, she writes “that the Court’s role is to respect the choices that the people have agreed upon, not to tell them what they should agree to.” The statement is populist tripe. Barrett seeks refuge in numbers, not principles, to enable her to avoid legal reasoning. Even so, she is wrong on the facts. The right to abortion had near-majority support in 1973 and more-than-majority support in 2022, when Barrett voted for Dobbs. And she is wrong about the Court’s role. It is to interpret the law, not conduct polls; determine what the law means and whether the facts of the case comport with it or not; and ignore what popular passions, whether majoritarian or minoritarian, “agree” on or not. Having reached the Court by Senator Mitch McConnell’s political maneuvering, Barrett shows herself comparably manipulative in her political rationalizations of bankrupt legal decisions. Her defenses of the Court’s decisions are partisan, distorted, and self-serving, and her defenses of her and its decisions between now and the midterm elections will be no better.
One factor explaining Trump’s power over politicians in Congress is the lack of term limits, which permits them to make a career of politics. Such a career requires the likelihood of re-election every two (House) or six (Senate) years. Incumbents tend to do whatever is possible to increase the likelihood of re-election. For this reason, they support gerrymandering so that they can pick the voters most likely to re-elect them. Then, the threats to incumbents in such districts are primary challengers more extreme than they or party leaders who can back challengers if incumbents do not comply with leaders’ wishes. The results are not only polarization of officials in Congress, but also self-interested submission to leaders’ demands. One corrective action to this situation is term limits—say, at most, four terms in the House and two terms in the Senate, for 20 years—, which would limit anyone’s chance of making a career of politics in Congress. The Constitution is silent on the matter, so whether term limits would require an amendment or merely legislation is unclear. However, since both chambers of Congress can set standards for admission to or expulsion from them, legislation would seem a feasible route. Presumably, those interested in serving in Congress would have an interest in one or more particular issues and the hope of being able to get results during their time in office. And a more frequent rotation of Representatives and Senators would mean fresher ideas and more responsive representation.
Pundits insist that Republicans in Congress, especially in the House, lack the courage of their convictions to resist Trump by insisting on their Constitutional prerogatives. They assume that Republicans have convictions contrary to his policies and are squeamish about how he implements them. Their assumptions are wrong or flawed. Republicans have the courage of long-standing GOP convictions, which Trump is forcefully implementing: shrinking government; lowering taxes on the rich; reducing healthcare and social services; promoting fossil fuels and opposing “green” energy; undermining public education and favoring charter, private, and parochial schools; among others. Republicans will let successful implementation override any squeamishness. So they will not stand up to Trump; instead, they will continue to stand with him. Republicans will not reverse course when they have political control of all three branches and have hopes of retaining that control by fair means or foul in the midterm elections scheduled for, but possibly disrupted or cancelled in, 2026.
No comments:
Post a Comment