[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2022-July-26, 15:30, said:

I am not trying to duck realism, I am trying to realistically address an issue I have been thinking about for quite a few years. Let's say that the Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. So I was taught. I imagine you were taught the same. How do we deal with the fundamental law of the land being a document enacted in 1788? However brilliant Madison et al were, it was 1788. Before social media, before television, before radio, before the pony express. I was once in a bar in Laurel Maryland that was in a redone hotel where people used to stay overnight when traveling from Washington D.C. to Baltimore Maryland. It's an hour's drive. A very different world. Amendments to the Constitution are few and hard to come by. So what do we do? Well, we interpret. But actually, it is not you and I who interpret, or if we do no one cares, the Supreme Court interprets. Inevitably, this often makes the Supreme Court political. It seems unlikely that all Supreme Court decisions that I like are completely logical and apolitical while all Supreme Court decisions that I don't like are completely political and illogical. It's a mix.

I mentioned that I hope to hear from people from other nations. Probably most nations have some fundamental documents, something that y are proud of and they regard as expressing basic principles of their society. I suppose that they somehow address the fact that something written 200+ years ago might need some re-interpretation for application to today's world.

I believe this is an excellent question and a topic that should be of concern. But is now the time? Answers to these questions rely on people of good faith who may disagree but also acknowledge the validity of those with whom they disagree. Do you think these are such times? Are the differences intellectually derived or driven by emotional and personal beliefs of morality? Do you think these questions matter to the 6 justices on the SCOTUS who killed Roe?

My immediate concern is what will this SCOTUS rule if Trump is convicted of a crime. What will they rule about insurrectionists challenges? Will they side with the states and effectively eliminate fair elections and a representative government elected by the people?

[Gilithin]

 kenberg, on 2022-July-26, 15:30, said:

I am not trying to duck realism, I am trying to realistically address an issue I have been thinking about for quite a few years. Let's say that the Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. So I was taught. I imagine you were taught the same. How do we deal with the fundamental law of the land being a document enacted in 1788?

I have some more basic questions for you. How do you address the issue of the people entrusted with interpreting what the Constitution means deciding that it means something completely different that matches their political beliefs? Should you just accept that 5 or 6 unelected people backed by corrupt and bought cronies now run the country? And if not, what is the proper remedy? This seems a far more pressing issue for America than how to bring the Constitution into the 21st century.

[kenberg]

Drat. I am squeezed for time this morning, I started a response, and somehow I made it disappear. Honest.

I'll have more to say this evening.

[y66]

+1 for drat.

[y66]

Matt Yglesias said:

Vaxxed, Paxxed, and Relaxed.

NYT said:

President Biden returned to the Oval Office on Wednesday after testing negative for Covid-19. "You can live without fear by doing what I did," he said. "Get boosted, get tested, get treated."

https://www.nytimes....smid=tw-nytimes

[y66]

Norman Lear said:

https://www.nytimes....orman-lear.html

Well, I made it. I am 100 years old today. I wake up every morning grateful to be alive.

Reaching my own personal centennial is cause for a bit of reflection on my first century — and on what the next century will bring for the people and country I love. To be honest, I’m a bit worried that I may be in better shape than our democracy is.

I was deeply troubled by the attack on Congress on Jan. 6, 2021 — by supporters of former President Donald Trump attempting to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Those concerns have only grown with every revelation about just how far Mr. Trump was willing to go to stay in office after being rejected by voters — and about his ongoing efforts to install loyalists in positions with the power to sway future elections.

I don’t take the threat of authoritarianism lightly. As a young man, I dropped out of college when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and joined the U.S. Army Air Forces. I flew more than 50 missions in a B-17 bomber to defeat fascism consuming Europe. I am a flag-waving believer in truth, justice and the American way, and I don’t understand how so many people who call themselves patriots can support efforts to undermine our democracy and our Constitution. It is alarming.

At the same time, I have been moved by the courage of the handful of conservative Republican lawmakers, lawyers and former White House staffers who resisted Mr. Trump’s bullying. They give me hope that Americans can find unexpected common ground with friends and family whose politics differ but who are not willing to sacrifice core democratic principles.

Encouraging that kind of conversation was a goal of mine when we began broadcasting “All in the Family” in 1971. The kinds of topics Archie Bunker and his family argued about — issues that were dividing Americans from one another, such as racism, feminism, homosexuality, the Vietnam War and Watergate — were certainly being talked about in homes and families. They just weren’t being acknowledged on television.

For all his faults, Archie loved his country and he loved his family, even when they called him out on his ignorance and bigotries. If Archie had been around 50 years later, he probably would have watched Fox News. He probably would have been a Trump voter. But I think that the sight of the American flag being used to attack Capitol Police would have sickened him. I hope that the resolve shown by Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, and their commitment to exposing the truth, would have won his respect.

It is remarkable to consider that television — the medium for which I am most well-known — did not even exist when I was born, in 1922. The internet came along decades later, and then social media. We have seen that each of these technologies can be put to destructive use — spreading lies, sowing hatred and creating the conditions for authoritarianism to take root. But that is not the whole story. Innovative technologies create new ways for us to express ourselves, and, I hope, will allow humanity to learn more about itself and better understand one another’s ideas, failures and achievements. These technologies have also been used to create connection, community and platforms for the kind of ideological sparring that might have drawn Archie to a keyboard. I can only imagine the creative and constructive possibilities that technological innovation might offer us in solving some of our most intractable problems.

I often feel disheartened by the direction that our politics, courts and culture are taking. But I do not lose faith in our country or its future. I remind myself how far we have come. I think of the brilliantly creative people I have had the pleasure to work with in entertainment and politics, and at People for the American Way, a progressive group I co-founded to defend our freedoms and build a country in which all people benefit from the blessings of liberty. Those encounters renew my belief that Americans will find ways to build solidarity on behalf of our values, our country and our fragile planet.

Those closest to me know that I try to stay forward-focused. Two of my favorite words are “over” and “next.” It’s an attitude that has served me well through a long life of ups and downs, along with a deeply felt appreciation for the absurdity of the human condition.

Reaching this birthday with my health and wits mostly intact is a privilege. Approaching it with loving family, friends and creative collaborators to share my days has filled me with a gratitude I can hardly express.

This is our century, dear reader, yours and mine. Let us encourage one another with visions of a shared future. And let us bring all the grit and openheartedness and creative spirit we can muster to gather together and build that future.

[Winstonm]

 y66, on 2022-July-27, 10:25, said:

+1 for drat.

I upvoted you. Do I get +2 for double-drat?

[kenberg]

A long day and I am tired. It might be a while. Norman Lear at 100. Congrats.

[cherdano]

 kenberg, on 2022-July-27, 06:40, said:

Drat. I am squeezed for time this morning, I started a response, and somehow I made it disappear. Honest.

I'll have more to say this evening.

How are we going to save the Republic if Ken doesn't give it due priority?

[barmar]

 Gilithin, on 2022-July-27, 01:11, said:

I have some more basic questions for you. How do you address the issue of the people entrusted with interpreting what the Constitution means deciding that it means something completely different that matches their political beliefs? Should you just accept that 5 or 6 unelected people backed by corrupt and bought cronies now run the country? And if not, what is the proper remedy? This seems a far more pressing issue for America than how to bring the Constitution into the 21st century.

Unfortunately, there isn't really any recourse. Harry Truman may have had a sign on his desk saying "The buck stops here", but it really stops at the Supreme Court. We say that there are 3 co-equal branches of the federal government, but there isn't really a branch that can supercede SCOTUS. The only way to override their decision is to amend the Constitution, but this is a very slow, difficult process, and the amendment would have to be extremely clear to avoid the court twisting its meaning to whatever they want to say. There are no rules for how the court makes its decisions -- nothing technically prevents them from interpreting 1 as 2 or "may" as "may not", although AFAIK they've never gone that far. Stare decisis is a tradition, not a rule, and we've just seen the current court throw it out the window. Lower court judges are required to recuse themselves when they have a conflict of interest, but there's no such requirement for the Supreme Court -- hence Clarence Thomas can and does participate in cases where his wife is involved.

Supreme Court Justices have the job for life -- the only way to remove them is impeachment, which is also a political process. No Supreme Court Justice has ever been removed by impeachment. One was impeached but not removed (like Clinton and Trump), and another resigned when threatened with impeachment (like Nixon) -- those are the closest we've come in over 200 years.

This is why some Democrats have been mulling increasing the size of the Supreme Court to allow them to rebalance its ideology. But good luck getting that past the fillibuster.

Much of the processes defined in the Constitution assumed that our leaders were generally people of honor. Unfortunately, they're mostly just people.

[johnu]

 barmar, on 2022-July-27, 18:00, said:

We say that there are 3 co-equal branches of the federal government, but there isn't really a branch that can supercede SCOTUS. The only way to override their decision is to amend the Constitution, but this is a very slow, difficult process, and the amendment would have to be extremely clear to avoid the court twisting its meaning to whatever they want to say. There are no rules for how the court makes its decisions -- nothing technically prevents them from
interpreting 1 as 2 or "may" as "may not", although AFAIK they've never gone that far.

In theory, Congress could pass a law restricting the Supreme Court from having jurisdiction over a particular law or executive order. I've read that this would only be prospective, not applying to previous decisions, so Congress would have to pass a similar but different law.

There is nothing to prevent the Supreme Court from ignoring the letter of the law and/or Constitution, and just making up rulings from thin air. For instance, 5 justices could say we want to bring back slavery, so forget what the 13th Amendment says, we think it says something different. And there would be no way to get rid of those justices except by impeachment which 34 senators could block.

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2022-July-27, 17:35, said:

How are we going to save the Republic if Ken doesn't give it due priority?

Good point!

On top of an already busy day a deer ran into the side of my car. Modest damage to the car, and maybe, I hope, \ to the deer but it shook me up. This evening was spent setting up an exercise bike. They tell me I should exercise but it's been pretty hot outside so I finally gave in and went with indoor gadgetry. It goes against my general principles but I have weird general principles.

Oh the busy life of a retiree!.

[y66]

Matt Yglesias said:

The closer!

Jeff Stein at WaPo said:

Scoop: At the urging of several Dem Senators, Larry Summers spoke this week w/ Senator Joe Manchin & emphasized to Manchin that Dems' economic package was NOT inflationary, per sources

Manchin has occasionally consulted w/ Summers for over a year now

https://washingtonpo...y-climate-bill/

Emily Cochrane, Jim Tankersley and Lisa Friedman at NYT said:

https://www.nytimes....e-tax-bill.html

One possible clue to Mr. Manchin’s change of heart came in a line of his joint announcement with Mr. Schumer that they had secured a commitment from both Mr. Biden and Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California that Congress would approve a separate measure to address the permitting of energy infrastructure, potentially including natural gas pipelines, before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.

That could ease the way for a project in which Mr. Manchin has taken a personal interest, the Mountain Valley Pipeline, which would transport Appalachian shale gas from West Virginia to Virginia.

[Gilithin]

 johnu, on 2022-July-27, 18:55, said:

In theory, Congress could pass a law restricting the Supreme Court from having jurisdiction over a particular law or executive order.

Maybe they could. But when the SCOTUS declares that law unconstitutional, how does it help?

 barmar, on 2022-July-27, 18:00, said:

Unfortunately, there isn't really any recourse. Harry Truman may have had a sign on his desk saying "The buck stops here", but it really stops at the Supreme Court. We say that there are 3 co-equal branches of the federal government, but there isn't really a branch that can supercede SCOTUS.

Well think of this Barry. Say that in the days immediately following Independence that the British infiltrated American politics and through bribery, corruption and the judicious application of useful idiots were able to gain control of the fledgling SCOTUS. Does anyone think that the Founding Fathers would have had any difficulty in declaring them traitors and removing them, either directly by impeachment, or, if the British made that politically impossible, potentially by force? Sometimes keeping democracy alive requires more than just shouting and feeling angry. The people on January 6th did what they did because they were deceived by those in power into believing America was at such a moment. It actually is, but not in the way that the lies made them believe. The question is whether people will be willing to do what is necessary before minority rule is imposed so tightly that the time for action is lost forever.

[kenberg]

 Gilithin, on 2022-July-27, 01:11, said:

I have some more basic questions for you. How do you address the issue of the people entrusted with interpreting what the Constitution means deciding that it means something completely different that matches their political beliefs? Should you just accept that 5 or 6 unelected people backed by corrupt and bought cronies now run the country? And if not, what is the proper remedy? This seems a far more pressing issue for America than how to bring the Constitution into the 21st century.

I'll give this a try, borrowing some from Barry's post. Our government is constructed so that SCOTUS has the final word, in less the Constitution is amended. And amendments are tough to get. Further, very few significant statements are so totally clear that only one interpretation is possible. I'll take two examples.


Second Amendment. I imagine asking Madison, or a Founding Father of your choice, "So do you think that a passenger has a right to carry a fully loaded assault rifle with him on a flight from Ohare to LAX?". His answer would be "Huh?"

Abortion rights: We ask Madison if the Constitution gives a woman, at least after she has reached voting age, the right to decide for herself whether she will or will not have sex and whether she will or will not abort an unintended pregnancy. The answer would probably be something like " We did not really have such issues in mind. Anyway, a young woman should do as her father says and then, after age 16 or so, she should marry a man her father approves of and then do what her husband says. And what's this nonsense about a woman reaching voting age?"

Once it is agreed that Madison et all did not fully predict the future then it becomes clear that interpreting what the Constitution asserts will not be based on robotic logic. Views will matter, and people will be able to match their logic, at least to some degree, to their preferences.

If we accept that much then we can start to ask "How on Earth did we ever get to where we are at?"

Often the answer, on this thread and elsewhere is "The leaders are evil and the people are stupid". If that answer is correct, then we are doomed. And maybe we are. My thoughts, perhaps hopelessly idealistic, run more along the lines of Democrats asking how they can achieve greater support from the population. You might say "Of course, Ken, they do that". I don't think so. Without claiming that I am Everyman, I think that my upbringing, my life, my thinking are shared by a large number of people. Often I listen to Dems and think "I am not sure who he is speaking to, but it's not me". If we favor democracy, then we accept that the solution to the problems we face involves, at least partially, in getting more votes for Democrats. That requires that Democrats ask themselves why this isn't happening. If their answer is "Because people are stupid" then they need to think a little harder.

[y66]

Matt Yglesias said:

Okay but the veterans have to understand — Democrats passed a bill to catch and punish rich tax cheats, so Rick Scott had no choice but to throw a fit and screw the vets. What else is the guy supposed to do?

Igor Bobic at HuffPo said:

Jon Stewart calling out Republicans by name for blocking veterans care bill yesterday, including McConnell, Toomey, Rick Scott.

“I’m used to the hypocrisy…I’m used to the lies.”

“The Senate is where accountability goes to die.”

[johnu]

 Gilithin, on 2022-July-27, 21:49, said:

Maybe they could. But when the SCOTUS declares that law unconstitutional, how does it help?

Well, that would definitely create a constitutional crisis that has never been seen in the US. However, the basic fact is that the Supreme Court has no enforcement powers, so it depends on the other 2 branches of government to abide by its decisions. There is nothing the Supreme Court can do if the other 2 branches decide to ignore the Supreme Court.

Congress could take other extreme steps, like defunding the court, and shutting down the Supreme Court building. Or the court could be packed by adding enough new justices to be able to override the previous votes. Democrats are currently pushing a bill that would term limit Supreme Court justices, although even if it passed, would not have much if any effect for years on court decisions.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2022-July-28, 08:05, said:

I'll give this a try, borrowing some from Barry's post. Our government is constructed so that SCOTUS has the final word, in less the Constitution is amended. And amendments are tough to get. Further, very few significant statements are so totally clear that only one interpretation is possible. I'll take two examples.


Second Amendment. I imagine asking Madison, or a Founding Father of your choice, "So do you think that a passenger has a right to carry a fully loaded assault rifle with him on a flight from Ohare to LAX?". His answer would be "Huh?"

Abortion rights: We ask Madison if the Constitution gives a woman, at least after she has reached voting age, the right to decide for herself whether she will or will not have sex and whether she will or will not abort an unintended pregnancy. The answer would probably be something like " We did not really have such issues in mind. Anyway, a young woman should do as her father says and then, after age 16 or so, she should marry a man her father approves of and then do what her husband says. And what's this nonsense about a woman reaching voting age?"

Once it is agreed that Madison et all did not fully predict the future then it becomes clear that interpreting what the Constitution asserts will not be based on robotic logic. Views will matter, and people will be able to match their logic, at least to some degree, to their preferences.

If we accept that much then we can start to ask "How on Earth did we ever get to where we are at?"

Often the answer, on this thread and elsewhere is "The leaders are evil and the people are stupid". If that answer is correct, then we are doomed. And maybe we are. My thoughts, perhaps hopelessly idealistic, run more along the lines of Democrats asking how they can achieve greater support from the population. You might say "Of course, Ken, they do that". I don't think so. Without claiming that I am Everyman, I think that my upbringing, my life, my thinking are shared by a large number of people. Often I listen to Dems and think "I am not sure who he is speaking to, but it's not me". If we favor democracy, then we accept that the solution to the problems we face involves, at least partially, in getting more votes for Democrats. That requires that Democrats ask themselves why this isn't happening. If their answer is "Because people are stupid" then they need to think a little harder.

People have to change their own minds and the only way to encourage that change is to bombard them with the truth of reality.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2022-July-28, 17:18, said:

People have to change their own minds and the only way to encourage that change is to bombard them with the truth of reality.

Sure, but that's not what I am talking about
Or, rather, people do make up their own minds but I am not so sure this bombarding stuff works so well.

[pilowsky]

The problem is not necessarily the way that "the American people" think.
72% of Americans think that gun violence is a very big (48%) or moderately big (24%) problem (Pew Research).
Americans also think something should be done about it and they even agree on some of the things that ought to be done.

So what stops "the American people" from taking action to implement change about policy issues they are concerned about?

Not being American I can't say for sure but from the outside it seems that there are ingrained, bred in the bone sentiments that prevent change: even when a small sacrifice will improve the lot of everyone.

There seems to be a:
lack of trust in government.
belief in the paramount rights of the individual.
sense that if 'I' can get it and you can't then 'I' deserve to have it and you don't.

When only the 'I's' have it, caring for others by not always having what you want is a difficult concept to grasp.

It isn't just America obviously. Conservatives in Australia (and other countries) have also embraced the cult of what is euphemistically termed "personal responsibility".