A Deeply Fractured US

[Brad Sallows]

Can’t disagree and I suspect it’s an election ploy more than anything else.

But maximum terms and codes of ethics and conduct are good things.

If term limits were always good, we'd have them for everything.

The USSC already has a code of ethics, recently adopted, and always had customary standards. The chickensh!t stuff Democrats have been serving up in their attempts to pry loose at least one of the two oldest Republican-appointed justices (Thomas and Alito) is a poor pretext for the sudden interest in the subject. No matter what is done, I suppose Democrats will just keep demanding one more thing. I predict that if they ever feel like they have 5 pliable justices on their side, the activism will stop.

Democrats are enraged that they might have to persuade voters to grant them majorities in Congress that would allow them to legislate things that should be legislated instead of seeking creative separation-of-powers-breaching solutions through courts or executive branch overreach. It affects their judgement, and it shows in their actions. Temper tantrums and political vote-stoking gambits ought not be taken seriously.

 

[KevinB]

Yeah I am curious how they do this.

The problem with an all female ticket is that may turn off some people if they decide to do the whole glass ceiling but Clinton did and push that angle,

Honestly I think Senator Kelly is a good choice and balances them out nicely and he’s apparently on the short list. Astronaut, Gabby Giffords his his wife etc etc. Checks a lot of boxes to counter the GOP attack lines.

Kelly will lose a lot of gun owning Democrats.

I don’t think he’s a good choice in many respects, but I know some Democrats and he would be a result in a non vote.

Honestly they need a much more middle of the road VP choice of they want to shore up support.

 

[Remius]

If term limits were always good, we'd have them for everything.

Lifetime appointments are never good. I’m surprised you would support that.

The USSC already has a code of ethics, recently adopted, and always had customary standards. The chickensh!t stuff Democrats have been serving up in their attempts to pry loose at least one of the two oldest Republican-appointed justices (Thomas and Alito) is a poor pretext for the sudden interest in the subject. No matter what is done, I suppose Democrats will just keep demanding one more thing. I predict that if they ever feel like they have 5 pliable justices on their side, the activism will stop.

Ok so you don’t like strengthened codes of conduct and ethics. I suspect that the activism would just be in reverse if it were on their side.

Democrats are enraged that they might have to persuade voters to grant them majorities in Congress that would allow them to legislate things that should be legislated instead of seeking creative separation-of-powers-breaching solutions through courts or executive branch overreach. It affects their judgement, and it shows in their actions. Temper tantrums and political vote-stoking gambits ought not be taken seriously.

Translation: if it comes from the side I don’t like it isn’t good.

I do agree that it won’t see the light of day. In the end my GAFF for it is low as it has no effect on us here politically. Just interesting to watch and comment on.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Kelly will lose a lot of gun owning Democrats.

Probably. Vote-killing issues are more influential than vote-attracting issues, for issues that people feel strongly about. This is just a recognized outcome of human behaviour. (Example: no amount of pork is likely to buy a voter for whom the 2A is iconic.) It's why an election platform ought not have too many key planks, because each one turns off all the voters for whom it's a single-issue killer. If there isn't much overlap between voters turned off by each issue, it's possible to have a situation in which each issue polls really well individually, but the sum of the lost voters is enough to lose the election.

Some of the pandering the Democrats are doing to appease the leftmost progressives (gun control, USSC reforms) could easily cost them greater numbers of votes in the centre.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Lifetime appointments are never good. I’m surprised you would support that.

Ok so you don’t like strengthened codes of conduct and ethics. I suspect that the activism would just be in reverse if it were on their side.

Translation: if it comes from the side I don’t like it isn’t good.

Lifetime appointments tend to insulate against interference and reduce the frequency of the now customary political fights over nominations. It simply isn't the case that there are no benefits at all.

The low-level noise Democrats have been harassing justices with highlights that whatever customary rules justices have been following have been working well enough - if Democrats could find something more substantial, they'd use it. It's easy to argue in the abstract that strengthened codes of conduct are good, and I agree. In reality, they're a vehicle for political interference. I see the reality; I'm not going to play the fool or the useful idiot and admire the emperor's clothes.

I've been observing USSC politics long enough to conclude that when Republicans don't get the results they prefer, they whine about it for a while and work on using the existing system as-is when they have a chance to nominate. When Democrats don't get the results they prefer, they whine about it for a long time and continue agitating to change the system. I'm inclined to be conservative; I don't see a need for reform and I do see quite clearly stuff that is being promoted for pure political advantage. The obvious base politics are not only insufficient reasons for change; they are sufficient reasons to resist change.

 

[Remius]

Kelly will lose a lot of gun owning Democrats.

Possible yes. But he’s seen as strong on the border and has worked with people across the floor on that which might be a counter balance.

I don’t think he’s a good choice in many respects, but I know some Democrats and he would be a result in a non vote.

Honestly they need a much more middle of the road VP choice of they want to shore up support.

Shapiro possibly but I suspect he is an asset in his state whether he’s the VP pick or not.