Twee-ee-eet

Who needs death camps when there is covid? – Tweet

Explaining conservatives killing their base: “They are composed almost entirely of hate for every unfallen creature, but there is nothing they hate more than a useless tool.” (James Blish) – Tweet

A technological preventative for covid was discovered, Then we found out that people would rather be right than healthy, or even alive. – Tweet

Against Supermajority Requirements in a Partisan System

(First in a series on needed constitutional reforms.)

Very sharp Twitter commentator Pé (@4everNeverTrump) pointed out that in a two-party system, it is well-nigh impossible to meet a supermajority requirement, and the Founders did not foresee the emergence of political parties. So the US political system and the constitution was never supposed to be as inflexible as it rapidly became, largely to defend the slave system.

The supermajority requirement for constitutional amendments and various legislative actions has not led to a sensible caution in making fundamental changes, but rather institutional rigidity.

• The difficult of amending the constitution protected slavery for a century. While in theory some retardation in changes to fundamental law is sensible, in practice that retardation seems to operate in favor of the harshest, most unethical law.
• The supermajority of the Senate filibuster, which is not even part of the constitution, but a rule adopted by the Senate, has made deadlock on any controversial issue the norm of the U.S. Congress. This has made for all manner of mischief. It protected Jim Crow for nearly a century, as well as preventing the passage of anti-lynching legislation. The overall effect of the supermajority requirement of the filibuster ceding leads to Congress ceding power to the Presidency and the Supreme Court, both of which have become far too powerful.
• The constitutional supermajority requirements on expulsion of House and Senate members make it near-impossible to expel even member of the poorest character. This is part of why people of appalling character remain in both houses.

It also makes hash of the legal system. Liberals applauded the Court of the mid-20ᵗʰ century. Now conservatives applaud the capricious radical-right Roberts Court of the 21ˢᵗ. We end up with a tortured series of decisions based on complicated interpretations of law because the legislature deadlocks on every controversial issue. Surely it would be better if the legislature legislated as was intended, the executive executed that legislation, and the courts make decisions based on it?

Twee-ee-eet!

 These are a bit old, but not, I think, stale.

"the 2022 and 2024 elections are going to be so bad. unimaginably bad" – Talia Lavin

"But that’s all right. 2021s supreme court decisions are going to stink too." – me, https://twitter.com/RavenOnthill/status/1397154934932480007?s=20

"Time was, we wondered what crazy thing the president would do. Now we wonder what crazy thing the Supreme Court will do." – https://twitter.com/RavenOnthill/status/1397156138857078786?s=20

"Once inside, some in the crowd began threatening the supervisors tuning in remotely." – https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/a-covid-fueled-recall-effort-wears-down-political-life-in-deep-red-california-county

"We are being terrorized by teenage boys and mean girls in adult bodies." – me, https://twitter.com/RavenOnthill/status/1397260384810143744?s=20

Conservative Men

Barack Obama and Joseph Biden are both decent and devout men, conservative in their personal lives. This is exactly what our right wing keeps saying they want, but they won’t vote for them.

Taney Court II: The Law is the Loser - Foreign Policy Edition

Ian Millhiser, writing in Vox yesterday morning

On August 13, a judge in Texas appointed by then-President Donald Trump effectively ordered the Biden administration to permanently reinstate Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy. That policy, which is officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), requires many immigrants who seek asylum in the United States to stay in Mexico while they await a hearing.

Twitter commentator @nycsouthpaw, yesterday evening:

Supreme Court endorses a lower court judge’s hostile takeover of immigration policy, ordering the Biden Admin to resume the so-called remain in Mexico policy while litigation proceeds.

This is a Supreme Court endorsement of the creation of concentration camps in Mexico. Almost as troubling as that endorsement are the implications of the decision. What, exactly, is the Biden administration to do if Mexico rejects the creation of the camps? It is probably a breach of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees to which the USA is signatory. And, finally, foreign policy is not in the purview of the judiciary; that power is reserved to the Executive by the Constitution, and there is a body of law to that effect. The Roberts Court, in this not-exactly-a-decision, makes it possible for any Federal judge to intervene in foreign policy. It is clearly a political decision, and one made on whim, without any plausible legal theory behind it.

As I have written before, there is no law any more, only the whim of the Court's conservatives. I cannot see how the rule of law in the USA will survive many years of this.

Rebellious COVID Thoughts

Governors Abbott, DeSantis, and a few others are committing democide – murder by government – with their policies which spread COVID-19. It makes no sense, but there it is.

Can the Federal government do nothing? State governments have in history acted against their citizens: Jim Crow and the suppression of organized labor are the obvious examples, but never before have state governments acted against the life and health of their supporters. The US system, as a result of its heritage of slavery and racism, limits the actions the Federal government can take against the state governments, but over the two and a half centuries since the founding of the United States, Federal laws intended to check the worst abuses of the states have been passed, though often subverted by a reactionary judiciary.

I think in Pres. Biden's shoes I’d have the Justice Department to work up charges against Abbott and DeSantis that would stand up in court – after so many infections and deaths there ought to be something, some law under which they could be prosecuted. It just might work.

COVID-19: a crisis of faith

I’ve written about this before:  “A revolt against modernity. A revolt against the communications technologies which connect us. A revolt against a world where Western culture is one of many.” But above all, it is a revolt against the world where are the simple truths preached in fundamentalist and evangelical protestant churches are false.

Vaccination is not a new technology, nor is widespread deployment of vaccine a new thing. Vaccination has been used to suppress smallpox, one of the great ancient scourges of humanity, and polio. So why all this reaction against the COVID-19 vaccine? Apparently, because a significant fraction of the public is now persuaded that the use of the COVID-19 vaccine is blasphemous. But this is nonsense. Epidemics are nothing new and the Bible even advises the Israelites to follow medical advice.

The disease and the vaccines do not behave the way the preachers would have it. God doesn’t keep people from getting Covid and the vaccine works. So there is a crisis of faith. People have been given a choice: either believe what is taught in church or believe the advice to be vaccinated. And they know  from overwhelming concrete evidence that the advice given in church is wrong. For these people the epidemic and the vaccine is a crisis of faith. They are angry and disappointed in a way which is unimaginable to someone who has not a pillar of their life pulled out from under them.

Past crises of faith have resulted in enormous outbursts of anger and destruction. How do we prevent that here?