What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Sheilbh]

When was the last time a Democrat appointed justice didn't toe the party line?

That's exactly my point - it is political and Democrats should acknowledge that and build political institutions to support their ideas. But I think liberals are actually slightly invested in the idea that the judges they're nominating aren't political (they are) that they're just the best people for the job and they're just deciding cases on their merits (in a way that consistently aligns with their views).

It's not that they don't appoint liberal judges, but that there isn't that institutional framework that provides a pipeline - but also, I'd argue, helps construct the conservative legal theory that judges going through that pipeline promote. I could be wrong but I'd be astonished if there's a single Federalist Society appointee who doesn't on some level support originalism (maybe one day "common good constitutionalism"). There's no equivalent framework for a liberal/Democrat pipeline and school - it's just individual judges. They won't all have gone to lectures by the same senior judges and academics, or have that common theory/school of jurisprudence.

[Admiral Yi]

When was the last time a Democrat appointed justice didn't toe the party line?

That's exactly my point - it is political and Democrats should acknowledge that and build political institutions to support their ideas. But I think liberals are actually slightly invested in the idea that the judges they're nominating aren't political (they are) that they're just the best people for the job and they're just deciding cases on their merits (in a way that consistently aligns with their views).

It's not that they don't appoint liberal judges, but that there isn't that institutional framework that provides a pipeline - but also, I'd argue, helps construct the conservative legal theory that judges going through that pipeline promote. I could be wrong but I'd be astonished if there's a single Federalist Society appointee who doesn't on some level support originalism (maybe one day "common good constitutionalism"). There's no equivalent framework for a liberal/Democrat pipeline and school - it's just individual judges. They won't all have gone to lectures by the same senior judges and academics, or have that common theory/school of jurisprudence.

Sure there's a liberal pipeline.  It's called Harvard and Yale.

[Oexmelin]

It's also the conservative pipeline. That's not what Sheilbh is referring to.

[Sheilbh]

It's also the conservative pipeline. That's not what Sheilbh is referring to.

Yes - e.g. Adrian Vermeule teaches at Harvard on "common good" legal theory as originalism has served its purpose and scholars should not look to develop a more moral framework of jurisprudence.

It's definitely the pipeline for liberal judges too - as demonstrated in that Tweet from Hilary Clinton which I thought was not great on the Jackson nomination (and this goes to the deferring to institutions again on including "Ivy League Law School" on this):


Edit: And to be clear I'm not at all saying Vermeule shouldn't be teaching at Harvard - he's clearly an interesting thinker and legal theorist.

[Admiral Yi]

Public defender after a clerkship?  That's off the beaten path.

[The Minsky Moment]

I largely agree with Otto. A lot of the Democratic establishment also read the liberal victories of the past as a product of courts reaching the "right" decisions. Such a view erases decades of militancy, in favor of reading most political struggles as a would-be legal battle.

Except that Otto isn't saying the problem with the Democrats is insufficient grass roots militancy, it's taking unpopular positions on certain social issues. 

I think you are both partly right, partly not.  On transgender issues, the polling is a mixed bag; the GOP tried to run on the great bathroom scare in 2020 and the issue just doesn't seem to have that much salience.

The CRT issue OTOH really did catch me by surprise; in the last election cycle I watched it became a hotly debated issue in otherwise solid Democrat areas across the northeast, even though the "CRT" of political rhetoric was an invented bogeyman that had no connection to actual critical race theory and even though the perceived threat and problem was materially non-existent.  But the issue had salience because it was tied into education and the threat that our precious innocent children were being indoctrinated by sinister outside forces.  And of course because it implicates race, the eternal fault line of American politics and culture.

Could that narrative be countered by militancy and political mobilization by the left?  Not directly I think, although I suppose counter-narratives could be employed.  The problem with militancy of any stripe is messaging cannot be contained and shaped and therefore can backfire.  In the last election cycle when I looked into where the CRT hysteria was coming from (locally) one of big contributors was the involvement of the diversity consulting industry.  Like consultants of every stripe, diversity consultants have their uses and good ones have value, but there is also plenty of platitudinous drivel to go around and quality can vary.  Add that to some unverified comments from overenthusiastic educators and you get kindling for the bonfire of ersatz outrages.  The GOP is practiced at this media game - take one comment from one obscure activist, label it as the Democrat message and paste it onto every candidate on the nation and force them to backpedal and deny.

What I find interesting about the latest GOP turn is how enthusiastically they have embraced the rhetoric of
snowflakery. If you didn't know the context and read the Florida anti-CRT bill, you might very well assume that it was written by lefty campus activists advocating for safe-spaces and the suppression of micro-aggressions:

An individual should not be made to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race.

The intent here I presume was to "protect" little white Johnnies and Janes from having their feelings hurt learning that great-great-great grandpa was a big meanie slaveholder.  But the same language could be invoked by students of other races objecting to lessons about Columbus, Andrew Jackson, or any number of topics.  It points to the fact that the GOP rhetorical program lacks a coherent legislative program that is not fraught with contradictions and unintended consequences.

[the same is true for the "don't say gay" bill - from a professional POV I find it astonishing the FLA legislature did not think through fully the consequences of giving parents across the state sweeping rights to institute lawsuits combined with language that prohibits ANY "inappropriate" discussion of "sexual orientation" or "gender identity - i.e. including discussion of traditional identities and orientations. See bye to the Grimms and many others. . .]

It informs quite a bit the way they see their role: deferring to institutions as they function "as they should". For many of them, politics is about mustering the correct arguments in front of respected institutions, freeing them from the dirty labor of actually engaging with politics and pesky militants. Unlike Republicans however, they do not have a propaganda arm that frees them from that labor either, and the ingrained respect for institutions leave them defenseless when they are weaponized against them.

American institutions are under attack; if they are not strongly defended they will fall. Of course politics is more than making out formal cases in institutional settings, but without institutions politics simply becomes the choice of what form of dictatorship one will endure.

[The Minsky Moment]

When was the last time a Democrat appointed justice didn't toe the party line?

Not sure what party line means in this context but by any definition Breyer would qualify.

[Sheilbh]

I think you are both partly right, partly not.  On transgender issues, the polling is a mixed bag; the GOP tried to run on the great bathroom scare in 2020 and the issue just doesn't seem to have that much salience.

The CRT issue OTOH really did catch me by surprise; in the last election cycle I watched it became a hotly debated issue in otherwise solid Democrat areas across the northeast, even though the "CRT" of political rhetoric was an invented bogeyman that had no connection to actual critical race theory and even though the perceived threat and problem was materially non-existent.  But the issue had salience because it was tied into education and the threat that our precious innocent children were being indoctrinated by sinister outside forces.  And of course because it implicates race, the eternal fault line of American politics and culture.

I think that's why the current anti-trans and anti-LGBT stuff focuses on education, children and the whole language of "grooming". The bathroom scare just feels unfair which is why it doesn't work.

If you can build up a story about the state getting between you and your child to teach them things you don't think they're ready for, or the state education system in some way teaching your children things that you may be uncomfortable talking about then I think that's a more salient issue that people will care about and it doesn't carry with it the implication of fairness (possibly because people do imagine that all kids - or at least their kids - are straight and comfortable with their gender).

[OttoVonBismarck]

Except that Otto isn't saying the problem with the Democrats is insufficient grass roots militancy, it's taking unpopular positions on certain social issues.

That's a fair reading except I would say it's not so much taking unpopular positions as: the Republicans are creating issues that aren't really meaningfully significant in a real sense at all, and creating controversies where the natural Democratic inclination is to come down on a side that, because of the particulars, is going to be unpopular.

CRT is probably an easier example than the transgender stuff but I can go through both.

CRT - You start with something that had already been "seeded" as a boogeyman in higher ed, where even there it is not very common in undergraduate education, and where it is it tends to be in social science electives the vast majority of students would never take in any case. Then you transpose it down, do the things you said to make parents think it's a big issue K-12. Media machine churns. Then you have Democrats who want to defend independence of the school system and teachers ability to educate, who flub things like McAuliffe did here in Virginia where he basically says parents shouldn't worry about what teachers are teaching (I can't remember his wording off hand, but it was bad.)

The problem with this situation is there's a lot of parents who might be even anti-racist, or at least open to anti-racist messaging, who are not open to the idea that their kids might be getting "politically indoctrinated" at a very young age, and when the Democratic response is "hey don't worry about it let the schools run themselves", it does little to counter-message.

With the trans issues, and Florida's "Don't Say Gay", I think America has mostly turned fairly favorable to LGBT rights broadly speaking. But I think even a lot of American parents who are very supportive of those rights generally, if told "do you want your 1st grader to learn about transgenderism, people getting sex change operations, hormone treatment, and also about homosexuality and things like that?" I think like the polling in Florida says--most parents don't want that.

Now in a perfectly healthy society we'd have ways, even with young children, to "norm" LGBT people and what not, but it's 2022 not 2050, I think people still have some hang ups here and just aren't comfortable with children that age having these conversations especially if they perceive it as being the schools pushing these conversations.

Now, again--totally manufactured controversy, right? Because essentially no school was getting into these issues with children this age to begin with. But Republicans build the framework and set the battlefield, and Democrats dutifully swing at the doctored ball and strike out.

I don't know what the answer is, when a pitcher throws a spitball the answer is to tell the umpire and get the pitcher ejected. We don't have that equivalent in political discourse.

[FunkMonk]

Isn't that also just part and parcel of campaign politics, though? Shaping the discourse to your advantage? I mean yeah, it's a load of bullshit the Republicans are spitting out but it is effective politically at beating Democrats in elections. But the Republicans are basically Galaxy Brain-level with this stuff while Democrats are still banging bones and sticks on cave walls over here.

[Admiral Yi]

Pelosi has tested positive.

[Habbaku]

For fox rabies?

[Admiral Yi]

Nice.  Topical.  Current.

[alfred russel]

The corporate tax rate was 35% in the US. Trump cut it to 21%, with a bunch more changes reducing the corporate tax burden.

Biden ran on increasing it back to 28%. Manchin said he supported going up to 25%, but that isn't the point. It is still 21% and we are now more than a year into the administration. I haven't looked at polling numbers on this issue but my hunch is the public supports a tax rate over 21%. There is a real chance we roll into the elections without congressional action on this, and if so LOL on any hope of the rate changing in the administration.

Shit like this is why the democrats are in danger of getting shallacked in the upcoming elections. They can run an impeachment trial of Trump before getting a cabinet in place and even before the covid relief package, but when it comes to corporate tax rates from supposedly the party of the working class...crickets...

That is why attacks work so well. You run on working class issues, the public cares about those and inflation, but you don't act. You are open to the charge what you care about is CRT and transgender stuff. But on day 1 you shut down keystone, and the federal minumum wage is still $7.25, where it has been since 2009...

[The Minsky Moment]

Sinema opposed the corp tax raise; not enough votes in the Senate.