Archive | January 2013

Recess Appointments

A federal appeals court last week ruled that recess appointments, as practiced by presidents for many years, are unconstitutional.  Do you agree or disagree with the court’s decision?  Will Republicans who praised this ruling come to disagree with it in the future?

How old is too old?

The following suggests that Senator Frank Lautenberg is too old to run for reelection.  Meanwhile, Politco has reported that Joe Biden is “intoxicated” (figuratively, that is) by the prospect of becoming president.  Biden will be 74 in 2016.  So how old is too old?  Should there be age limits on elected officials, just as the Constitution imposes a minimum age?  Or should we let the voters decide?  What about federal judges? Should they be able to serve for life, as they do now?  Or should there be a mandatory retirement age?

 

Senator Frank Lautenberg Is Too Old to Run for Reelection

By Conor Friedersdorf

The 89-year-old New Jerseyan is refusing to bow out in 2014 — in defiance of both fellow Democrat Cory Booker and actuarial tables.

fl reuters.jpg

Reuters

Let’s not mince words: Senator Frank Lautenberg, who will be 90 in 2014, is too old to run for another six-year term. I am not questioning his mental sharpness or the wisdom that he’s accumulated.

They’re beside the point.

He’d be starting a new term while fifteen years older than the average life-expectancy for American males. What are the odds he’d survive in adequate health until 2020?

Low. Too low to risk letting him try, given the political disruption and discontinuity of service that would result if he failed. As a general matter, I am against age discrimination in hiring. I usually oppose mandatory retirement rules. And I know that New Jersey voters can reject the man even if he decides to run.

But don’t candidates owe their constituents the promise that, to the best of their ability to estimate, they’ll be capable of finishing the job? The hard truth is that Lautenberg can’t make that promise. Beyond actuarial reality, he’s already missed important votes because of health problems.

I don’t know if he could win a primary, but incumbency and name recognition are powerful advantages, and if he won, voters in the general election wouldn’t be permitted to just choose the man with the better platform, or the ones from the party with whom they identify more closely — to be responsible, they’d have to factor extreme age and its likely effects into their calculations.

At what point should voters consider age in general? I have no idea where the line should be drawn — just that 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, and 95 are all on the wrong side of it. New Jersey Supreme Court justices must retire at 70.

For those reasons and others, Lautenberg is way out of line for telling — via the Philadelphia Inquirer — Newark Mayor Cory Booker, who is interested in running for his seat, “I have four children, I love each one of them. I can’t tell you that one of them wasn’t occasionally disrespectful, so I gave them a spanking and everything was OK.”

Booker, the man he’s comparing to a child, is 43 years old — 10 years older than Jesus Christ when he died, 10 years older than Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, and eight years older than the minimum age at which one can run for president.

I hope Lautenberg lives to be 110, is healthy and productive until the end, and injects his elder’s wisdom into public discourse at every opportunity. But another six years in the Senate just doesn’t make sense. Earlier in his career, Lautenberg himself injected age into a race against a 72-year-old Republican opponent. He should retire at the end of his term and stay neutral in the race to succeed him.

Filibuster Reform

Some would say that the Senate took a positive step today with its reforms (resulting from a bipartisan agreement between Senators Reid and McConnell) of the filibuster.  Others, including Ezra Klein in the following piece, feel that the reforms are essentially meaningless.  Please share your thoughts.

Harry Reid: “I’m not personally, at this stage, ready to get rid of the 60-vote threshold”

By Ezra Klein , Updated: January 24, 2013

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have come to a deal on filibuster reform. The deal is this: The filibuster will not be reformed. But the way the Senate moves to consider new legislation and most nominees will be.

“I’m not personally, at this stage, ready to get rid of the 60-vote threshold,” Reid (D-Nev.) told me this morning, referring to the number of votes needed to halt a filibuster. “With the history of the Senate, we have to understand the Senate isn’t and shouldn’t be like the House.”

What will be reformed is how the Senate moves to consider new legislation, the process by which all nominees — except Cabinet-level appointments and Supreme Court nominations — are considered, and the number of times the filibuster can be used against a conference report. You can read the full text of the compromise, which was sent out to Senate offices this morning, here (pdf).

But even those reforms don’t go as far as they might. Take the changes to the motion to proceed, by which the Senate moves to consider a new bill. Reid seemed genuinely outraged over the way the process has bogged down in recent years.

“What the Republicans have done is turn the motion to proceed on its head,” he argued. “It was originally set up to allow somebody to take a look at a piece of legislation. What the Republicans have done is they simply don’t allow me to get on the bill. I want to go to it on a Monday, they make me file cloture, that takes till Tuesday. Then it takes two days for the cloture vote to ‘ripen,’ so now it’s Thursday, and even if I get 60 votes, they still have 30 hours to twiddle their thumbs, pick their nose, do whatever they want. So, I’m not on the bill by the weekend, and in reality, that means next Monday or Tuesday.”

But the deal Reid struck with McConnell doesn’t end the filibuster against the motion to proceed. Rather, it creates two new pathways for moving to a new bill. In one, the majority leader can, with the agreement of the minority leader and seven senators from each party, sidestep the filibuster when moving to a new bill. In the other, the majority leader can short-circuit the filibuster against moving to a new bill so long as he allows the minority party to offer two germane amendment that also can’t be filibustered. Note that in all cases, the minority can still filibuster the bill itself.

A pro-reform aide I spoke to was agog. “Right now, you have to negotiate with McConnell to get on a bill,” he said. “Tomorrow, if this passes, you still need to negotiate with McConnell to get on a bill. It changes nothing on how we move forward.”

The agreement also limits the number of times you can filibuster a bill after both the House and the Senate have agreed to it, and it limits the post-filibuster period on most nominations from 30 hours to two hours. Both reforms will speed the pace of the Senate a bit — the limit on post-cloture debate for nominations is particularly welcome among reformers — but neither is anything close to a game-changer. The question among some reformers, then, is what happened?

Last May, Reid shocked observers when he went to the Senate floor and apologized to Democratic Sens. Jeff Merkley (Ore.) and Tom Udall (N.M.) for blocking their efforts to weaken the filibuster. “These two young, fine senators said it was time to change the rules of the Senate, and we didn’t,” Reid said then. “And they were right. The rest of us were wrong — or most of us, anyway. What a shame… If there were anything that ever needed changing in this body, it’s the filibuster rule, because it’s been abused, abused and abused.”

Reformers think Reid changed his mind again in December, after a series of amendments to the Defense Authorization bill went awry and he began to worry that a talking filibuster, if not properly managed on the floor, could actually mean no filibuster at all in some cases. Reid said as much to me during our interview. When I asked him why he didn’t go for Merkley’s talking filibuster proposal, he said he’d concluded that it actually does get rid of the 60-vote threshold. He was, instead, pursuing a gentleman’s agreement with McConnell to encourage more talking filibusters.

A second explanation for Reid’s early enthusiasm for reform might be that Reid needed to convince McConnell to strike a deal and that the only way to do that was to scare him a bit. “Whenever you change the rules here,” Reid said, “you have to show the other side you can change them with 51 votes.” It’s the fear of the partisan reforms, in other words, that leads to bipartisan reforms.

Reid still wants to keep Republicans a little scared. He recalled that earlier in the 112th session of Congress, Senate Republicans began filing motions to suspend the rules after their filibusters were broken. “They couldn’t win these votes,” Reid said. ”It just ate up time. I put up with it for awhile and then said no more. I went to the floor, and I said that’s dilatory. The chair said no, it isn’t. I overruled the chair, and now you can’t do that because I set a precedent. I’m capable of doing more of that.”

I asked Reid whether he really thought the filibuster could survive in a Senate where, in truth, the majority leader, alongside 49 other senators and the vice president, could change any rule they wanted.

“The only way we’ll get rid of the filibuster is if it continues to be abused,” he said. “Hopefully, what we’ll do here will stop some of the abuse, but what will happenif the minority continues to abuse the rules is we won’t get rid of the filibuster, but we’ll go to something like what [Sen. Tom] Harkin has pushed, where one vote is at 57, and then another vote is at 55.”

But for now, Republicans have little to fear. The filibuster is safe. Even filibusters against the motion to proceed are safe. And filibuster reformers have lost once again.

Women in combat

The defense department will announce today that, going forward, women may serve in combat for the US military.  Do you believe that this is a good idea?  Do you believe that women (like men) should be drafted, if in the future a military draft is implemented?

Obama’s speech

So here are some highlights from the President’s second inaugural speech (plus some Beyonce…).  What was the President’s thesis, to the extent a speech has a thesis?  What point did he most want to make?  What, if anything, surprised you about the speech?

“King Barack,” Executive Orders, and Gun Control

Senator Rand Paul suggests that the president’s use of an executive order to attempt to curb gun violence is unconstitutional.  Do you agree?

Hurricane Sandy Relief

OK, well this is Jon Stewart at his most caustic.  So try to discount the emotion a bit, and analyze the underlying issues.  Why DID 67 Republicans vote against the Hurricane Sandy relief bill that came up last Friday?  If it wasn’t about an objection to pork barrel spending, what was the reason for their vote?  This may require you to do some research, but it would be worth it for someone to come up with an explanation that clearly Stewart does not have.

The (un)popularity of Congress

So is it fair that Congress is so unpopular?  What could/should Congress do to improve its image?

Congress Less Popular than Cockroaches, Traffic Jams

Raleigh, N.C. – Facing low approval ratings after a historically unproductive 112th session and a series of last-minute showdowns over fiscal matters, Congress is now less popular than root canals, NFL replacement referees, head lice, the rock band Nickelback, colonoscopies, carnies, traffic jams, cockroaches, Donald Trump, France, Genghis Khan, used-car salesmen and Brussel sprouts.

When asked if they have a higher opinion of either Congress or a series of unpleasant or disliked things, voters said they had a higher opinion of root canals (32 for Congress and 56 for the dental procedure), NFL replacement refs (29-56), head lice (19-67), the rock band Nickelback (32-39), colonoscopies (31-58), Washington DC political pundits (34- 37), carnies (31-39), traffic jams (34-56), cockroaches (43-45), Donald Trump (42-44), France (37-46), Genghis Khan (37-41), used-car salesmen (32-57), and Brussels sprouts (23-69) than Congress.

Congress did manage to beat out telemarketers (45-35), John Edwards (45-29), the Kardashians (49-36), lobbyists (48-30), North Korea (61-26), the ebola virus (53-25), Lindsay Lohan (45-41), Fidel Castro (54-32), playground bullies (43-38), meth labs (60- 21), communism (57-23), and gonorrhea (53-28).

Congress’s overall favorability rating stands at just 9% favorable and 85% unfavorable. Women (13-81) view Congress slightly more favorably than men (6-89), as do Democrats (13-82) than Republicans (9-87), perhaps reflecting Democrats’ higher level of satisfaction with the recent fiscal cliff deal. Among ideological groups voters who describe themselves as “very liberal” have a higher than single-digit approval rating, with 36% holding a favorable view and 56% unfavorable.

“We all know Congress is unpopular,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “But the fact that voters like it even less than cockroaches, lice, and Genghis Khan really shows how far its esteem has fallen with the American public over the last few weeks.”

PPP surveyed 830 American voters from January 3rd to 6th. The margin of error is +/-3.4 percentage points. This poll was not paid for or authorized by any campaign or political organization. PPP surveys are conducted through automated telephone interviews.