Pete Buttigieg

[Derec]

I thought this thread was about Pete Buttiigieg! Y'all are such experts at derailing threads.

I merely said that it was refreshing that there is a non-lawyer like Mayor Pete in the race given how disproportionately reliant on lawyers Demcratic Party has been and I have been attacked by Koy, Elixir and other lawyer fanboys on here.

 

[Derec]

We all (finally) agreed, so relax everyone.

The fuck we have!

 

[Derec]

If you would like for one of the mods to move your posts Elsewhere so you can continue this discussion, let us know. Otherwise, knock off the derail.

Why ~Elsewhere? Why not as a separate thread in PD?

Democrats nominating pretty much only lawyers (and one law school dropout) over the last four decades is a legitimate politics discussion.

 

[ZiprHead]

If you would like for one of the mods to move your posts Elsewhere so you can continue this discussion, let us know. Otherwise, knock off the derail.

Why ~Elsewhere? Why not as a separate thread in PD?

Democrats nominating pretty much only lawyers (and one law school dropout) over the last four decades is a legitimate politics discussion.

Only in your mind.

 

[Elixir]

I merely said that it was refreshing that there is a non-lawyer like Mayor Pete in the race

I agree that Mayor Pete is a breath of fresh air.

given how disproportionately reliant on lawyers Demcratic Party has been

The fact that he doesn't trigger your liticaphobia doesn't really enhance the effect for me... YMMV of course.

Democrats nominating pretty much only lawyers (and one law school dropout) over the last four decades is a legitimate politics discussion.

Republicans' habit of uniformly nominating non-lawyers for legislative positions would be a more suitable subject for investigation/discussion IMO.
Is it because people who are familiar with law - especially constitutional law - are a threat to Republicans' treasonous intent?

 

[PyramidHead]

Can we have a conversation about this and what it says about the man's priorities

Inside Pete Buttigieg's plan to overhaul the Supreme Court

As Democrats agonize over a spate of state laws restricting abortion rights and even a potential reversal of Roe v. Wade, one 2020 presidential candidate is putting an ambitious, long-shot plan to reform the Supreme Court front-and-center of his campaign.

Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, has talked about his plan to overhaul the high court since his first days as a candidate. In short, it calls for expanding the number of justices from nine to 15, with five affiliated with Democrats, five affiliated with Republicans, and five apolitical justices chosen by the first 10.

Pete is the candidate for people who think The West Wing is how government works. Even in their most ambitious fantasies of a future politics, they don't imagine actually winning, but compromising. The idea that "apolitical justices" EVEN EXIST IN REALITY is almost worse than intentionally creating a two-party stalemate. It's a naive suggestion, and one that Pete isn't alone in making, that a society should deliberately organize itself around the midpoint of two ideological extremes in order to best serve anyone. There's a biblical parable about this; when you cut a baby in half, neither half is a baby.

 

[Brian63]

That rests heavily on the term "apolitical" which is not a realistic description of anyone involved at that level of government (and I do not know if Buttigieg and his campaign was using it, or just that linked article, or whomever). Instead, it could be rephrased as a "bipartisan" process and the gist of it would remain. The existing 10 justices, 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans, would agree on 5 other justices to serve on the bench. I do not know how it could be worked out that they would agree on those last 5, if all it took was 1 out of the 10 objecting to the candidate. It is a reasonable idea though, even if the details would need some fleshing out still.

 

[PyramidHead]

That rests heavily on the term "apolitical" which is not a realistic description of anyone involved at that level of government (and I do not know if Buttigieg and his campaign was using it, or just that linked article, or whomever). Instead, it could be rephrased as a "bipartisan" process and the gist of it would remain. The existing 10 justices, 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans, would agree on 5 other justices to serve on the bench. I do not know how it could be worked out that they would agree on those last 5, if all it took was 1 out of the 10 objecting to the candidate. It is a reasonable idea though, even if the details would need some fleshing out still.

What makes you say it's reasonable and not extremely wrongheaded? Is there any part of the Republican judicial platform that you support?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Even in their most ambitious fantasies of a future politics, they don't imagine actually winning, but compromising.

And what do you "imagine"? That unjust political opposition will simply magically disappear when the unicorn army comes to our rescue?

 

[Brian63]

That rests heavily on the term "apolitical" which is not a realistic description of anyone involved at that level of government (and I do not know if Buttigieg and his campaign was using it, or just that linked article, or whomever). Instead, it could be rephrased as a "bipartisan" process and the gist of it would remain. The existing 10 justices, 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans, would agree on 5 other justices to serve on the bench. I do not know how it could be worked out that they would agree on those last 5, if all it took was 1 out of the 10 objecting to the candidate. It is a reasonable idea though, even if the details would need some fleshing out still.

What makes you say it's reasonable and not extremely wrongheaded?

Because we unfortunately are unable to live in a world where we are going to get everything we want. We have to compromise our own values and judicial preferences to some degree and in some way with other people who oppose them, in order to cut our losses and still have a functioning government.

Is there any part of the Republican judicial platform that you support?

That would not matter. Even if I am completely in favor of one set of judicial policies, there are other voters who would favor completely opposing judicial policies. If we are going to have a government that serves both of our interests, neither one of us should exclusively determine who should be seated on the judicial benches. We should have some measure of influence though. This 15-judge setup would allow for every voter to have some measure of influence, even if not complete control.

 

[PyramidHead]

Because we unfortunately are unable to live in a world where we are going to get everything we want.

Right, because of proposals like these! For decades people have been saying that exact thing as a reason to accept getting less and less of what we want, and more and more of what we don't. That strategy has delivered us into the hell we are living in currently and needs to be shelved.

We have to compromise our own values and judicial preferences to some degree and in some way with other people who oppose them, in order to cut our losses and still have a functioning government.

But we do that by pushing, hard, asking for more than we expect to get, and then compromising on the way back. You don't play the 50/50 strategy as your opening move, because then you'll always end up with less.

When has a Republican ever worried about having a balanced judiciary, bipartisan support, or appeal to moderate Democrats? Can you even remember the last time? Why is compromise ALWAYS defined as 'Democrats giving up'?

Is there any part of the Republican judicial platform that you support?

That would not matter. Even if I am completely in favor of one set of judicial policies, there are other voters who would favor completely opposing judicial policies. If we are going to have a government that serves both of our interests, neither one of us should exclusively determine who should be seated on the judicial benches. We should have some measure of influence though. This 15-judge setup would allow for every voter to have some measure of influence, even if not complete control.

But Republicans don't even serve the interests of Republican voters. Democrats don't serve the interests of Democratic voters most of the time either! Party affiliation does not equate to representation by any stretch, and part of what makes Pete's suggestion so ignorant is the idea that a person's interests can only be served by a judge who is of the same political affiliation as them. The corollary assumption is that all interests are equally worthy of being served. Both of those assumptions are false! If you look at what Republican justices have done in the past few decades, were they primarily concerned with the interests of ordinary voters?

The end goal for any political movement should be to sway as many people to our side as possible, and then use that popular momentum to install a government that represents it. To say, during the fucking primaries, that we must intentionally establish and maintain an even split between politicians who put children in concentration camps and those who don't, is to concede defeat before the match even begins.

 

[Brian63]

Right, because of proposals like these! For decades people have been saying that exact thing as a reason to accept getting less and less of what we want, and more and more of what we don't. That strategy has delivered us into the hell we are living in currently and needs to be shelved.

It's a strategy known as "cutting your losses." It allows you stay in the game and possibly getting gains elsewhere and at other times. We cannot expect to win every single social battle we fight for, unfortunately. Have you found a different life approach more useful in your life? For instance, would you tell others who you have relationships with (like your romantic partner, your boss, your coworker, your neighbor) that "It's my way or the highway," all the time? But then you end up compromising somewhat, so they learn that you do not really mean what you say?

But we do that by pushing, hard, asking for more than we expect to get, and then compromising on the way back. You don't play the 50/50 strategy as your opening move, because then you'll always end up with less.

Not always, because the opposing party also would be operating under that exact same principle, and they cannot always get everything they want either (which would have been at our own expense). So we do win some with this method.

...The corollary assumption is that all interests are equally worthy of being served. Both of those assumptions are false!

That is a strawman. It is not that all interests are equally worthy of being served, it is that we have to share the same government with even other people with opposing interests. The government cannot satisfy us all completely, but it has to satisfy some of us somewhat. So how should the government pick and choose? This proposal is just one way. The current setup is also an alternative way. Neither setup would pretend that all interests are "equally worthy of being served." We are just trying to find a least-worst arrangement to set up a government.

The end goal for any political movement should be to sway as many people to our side as possible, and then use that popular momentum to install a government that represents it.

Agreed.

To say, during the fucking primaries, that we must intentionally establish and maintain an even split between politicians who put children in concentration camps and those who don't, is to concede defeat before the match even begins.

As long as roughly half of the population continues to support those Republicans and continue to place them in power to enact those dreadful policies, we unfortunately have to live with that reality. Change best comes from both the bottom up and the top down.

 

[PyramidHead]

It's a strategy known as "cutting your losses." It allows you stay in the game and possibly getting gains elsewhere and at other times. We cannot expect to win every single social battle we fight for, unfortunately. Have you found a different life approach more useful in your life? For instance, would you tell others who you have relationships with (like your romantic partner, your boss, your coworker, your neighbor) that "It's my way or the highway," all the time? But then you end up compromising somewhat, so they learn that you do not really mean what you say?

You frame this as the same kind of problem as two people in a relationship with different temperaments, instead of an existential threat to millions of lives, a battle for bodily autonomy, sexual identity, the environment, and the future of the working class itself. If one partner in a relationship was abusive, sociopathic, and only cared about himself, I would not recommend compromise with this individual, no.

That is a strawman. It is not that all interests are equally worthy of being served, it is that we have to share the same government with even other people with opposing interests.

If your interests are really opposed, then you should want them to have as little share of the government as possible, and you should be trying to convince as many people that their interests are best served by your side and hindered by the other. You don't rig the game beforehand so that the closest you can ever get is a tie.

The government cannot satisfy us all completely, but it has to satisfy some of us somewhat. So how should the government pick and choose?

Voting? Maybe voting for these justices, and having them recallable by a vote at any time, instead of being appointed from a pool of savvy elites who climbed the ladder of power by doing favors for the right people, none of whom are the actual voters? Just a thought.

This proposal is just one way. The current setup is also an alternative way. Neither setup would pretend that all interests are "equally worthy of being served." We are just trying to find a least-worst arrangement to set up a government.

By enshrining a permanent Republican half to the Supreme Court, Pete's proposal would in effect eliminate any chance of opposing their agenda. It would no longer matter who became President; Roe v. Wade would always be precarious, gay and trans people would always be uncertain for their status as human beings, and we'd always be one "apolitical" justice away from corporate takeover of the political process. The world does not operate the way you imagine it does, with two neat groups of people who have honest opinions that reflect immovable points of reference on the political spectrum. You do realize that Pete's strategy, combined with the steady rightward shift of the Democratic party since 1980 or so, basically makes it even more likely that the right wing will maintain their grip on government, right? Do you think the right wing as it is currently comprised in the government is representative of HALF the country? And not, I don't know, the 1% of the country that benefits from their policies?

The end goal for any political movement should be to sway as many people to our side as possible, and then use that popular momentum to install a government that represents it.

Agreed.

To say, during the fucking primaries, that we must intentionally establish and maintain an even split between politicians who put children in concentration camps and those who don't, is to concede defeat before the match even begins.

As long as roughly half of the population continues to support those Republicans and continue to place them in power to enact those dreadful policies, we unfortunately have to live with that reality. Change best comes from both the bottom up and the top down.

We don't have to help make reality more dreadful by giving the dreadful elements permanent equal status in an entire branch of our government.

 

[Brian63]

You frame this as the same kind of problem as two people in a relationship with different temperaments, instead of an existential threat to millions of lives, a battle for bodily autonomy, sexual identity, the environment, and the future of the working class itself. If one partner in a relationship was abusive, sociopathic, and only cared about himself, I would not recommend compromise with this individual, no.

Regardless of how bad the "compromise" position is, what if the alternative position of "aggression" would yield even worse outcomes? I agree that climate change (if you are referring to that) is an existential crisis for life. As long as we have to share the world and the country though with millions and millions and millions of people who keep putting into power who are climate-change deniers, we have to simply cut our losses as best we can. Delay the inevitable, alleviate the symptoms, even if we do not outright remedy the problem. As pessimistic as that is, it is still not as bad as the alternative, unless we can change the population overall. That is the only way for long-term benefit on so many levels. Politicians and judges can always create, abolish, interpret, and reinterpret laws as they want, but we voters have to decide which politicians and judges will be doing so.

The government cannot satisfy us all completely, but it has to satisfy some of us somewhat. So how should the government pick and choose?

Voting? Maybe voting for these justices, and having them recallable by a vote at any time, instead of being appointed from a pool of savvy elites who climbed the ladder of power by doing favors for the right people, none of whom are the actual voters? Just a thought.

How about we not leave it up to ignorant, stupid, careless, sloppy, uninformed, misinformed voters doing that? At least with the current setup, there are checks and balances that determine who will make it into judicial seats. The President nominates for the roles and the Senate has to do the background check (we could not rely on voters to do such work) and votes to approve or reject. It is not a perfect system, nobody is saying it is, but it is just the least-worst among the available options.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You frame this as the same kind of problem as two people in a relationship with different temperaments, instead of an existential threat to millions of lives, a battle for bodily autonomy, sexual identity, the environment, and the future of the working class itself. If one partner in a relationship was abusive, sociopathic, and only cared about himself, I would not recommend compromise with this individual, no.

You frame it as if we have a choice to not compromise. That's called a stalemate, not a "win."

 

[Elixir]

If one partner in a relationship was abusive, sociopathic, and only cared about himself, I would not recommend compromise with this individual, no.

It might be useful to recognize that while individuals are loathe to change themselves in any way whatsoever, populations are known to sometimes turn on a dime. I'm not ready to declare war on 37 - or even 27 percent of Americans. Yet.

 

[PyramidHead]

Regardless of how bad the "compromise" position is, what if the alternative position of "aggression" would yield even worse outcomes? I agree that climate change (if you are referring to that) is an existential crisis for life. As long as we have to share the world and the country though with millions and millions and millions of people who keep putting into power who are climate-change deniers, we have to simply cut our losses as best we can. Delay the inevitable, alleviate the symptoms, even if we do not outright remedy the problem. As pessimistic as that is, it is still not as bad as the alternative, unless we can change the population overall. That is the only way for long-term benefit on so many levels. Politicians and judges can always create, abolish, interpret, and reinterpret laws as they want, but we voters have to decide which politicians and judges will be doing so.

Then you should be opposed to a policy that says the voters don't decide, and that Thanos should snap his fingers and achieve an arbitrary balance between two parties that do not represent the interests of voters anyway! My God!

Voting? Maybe voting for these justices, and having them recallable by a vote at any time, instead of being appointed from a pool of savvy elites who climbed the ladder of power by doing favors for the right people, none of whom are the actual voters? Just a thought.

How about we not leave it up to ignorant, stupid, careless, sloppy, uninformed, misinformed voters doing that? At least with the current setup, there are checks and balances that determine who will make it into judicial seats. The President nominates for the roles and the Senate has to do the background check (we could not rely on voters to do such work) and votes to approve or reject. It is not a perfect system, nobody is saying it is, but it is just the least-worst among the available options.

This is where the real motivation behind your support (and Pete's candidacy more broadly) comes into focus: people can't be trusted to act in their own interests, so we need an elite class of specialists from the most prestigious universities to tell us what our priorities should be. You've already decided that it's unreasonable to hope for much better than this, and so anybody who disagrees must be a head-in-the-clouds idealist and can't be trusted anyway. I never said anything about removing all checks and balances, just making the process actually reflective of majority preferences, which you seemed to be cognizant of in your initial support of Pete's caricature of representative democracy, but can't bear to follow to the terrifying conclusion of actually asking the people who they want to have power over them. Making that the new normal, instead of this nightmare that you're pushing as the best of all possible worlds.

 

[PyramidHead]

If one partner in a relationship was abusive, sociopathic, and only cared about himself, I would not recommend compromise with this individual, no.

It might be useful to recognize that while individuals are loathe to change themselves in any way whatsoever, populations are known to sometimes turn on a dime. I'm not ready to declare war on 37 - or even 27 percent of Americans. Yet.

That's a shame, because they declared war on you long ago, and have been winning it ever since. It's like the saying about people who are "not into politics"... you know who's into politics? Your boss, your landlord, your police force, and your school board. Don't leave the parameters of what's acceptable and what needs to be compromised in their hands.

I'm not saying we have to slaughter these people or ignore their votes. I'm saying it's foolhardy to give them any advantage BEYOND what we expect to get from them, or what is constitutionally guaranteed for any political faction in America. We win by fighting them at the ballot box and in the workplace, and not giving an inch to their backwards, destructive ideology. Put them in the position of coming over to our side or facing political irrelevance. Don't hand them a blank check that basically preserves their political power forever in the highest court of the land!

 

[Brian63]

This is where the real motivation behind your support (and Pete's candidacy more broadly) comes into focus: people can't be trusted to act in their own interests, so we need an elite class of specialists from the most prestigious universities to tell us what our priorities should be. You've already decided that it's unreasonable to hope for much better than this, and so anybody who disagrees must be a head-in-the-clouds idealist and can't be trusted anyway. I never said anything about removing all checks and balances, just making the process actually reflective of majority preferences, which you seemed to be cognizant of in your initial support of Pete's caricature of representative democracy, but can't bear to follow to the terrifying conclusion of actually asking the people who they want to have power over them. Making that the new normal, instead of this nightmare that you're pushing as the best of all possible worlds.

You are partly-right and partly-wrong there. I do sympathize with your statement about me that I think "...people can't be trusted to act in their own interests, so we need an elite class of specialists from the most prestigious universities to tell us what our priorities should be."

Yes, that is often true. People are uninformed and misinformed about numerous topics, and we have to rely sometimes on others with more expertise, more time, more resources to represent us and to make choices on our own behalf. To go even further, people are often very stupid about knowing what is best for them, and so the age-old question comes into play of what role should the government play in our lives---Should it represent what the people want, or should it represent what is actually best for the people? They often are not the same. I have mixed feelings and undecided opinions on the topic. You categorize me as being entirely in one camp versus the other, which is not accurate.

 

[PyramidHead]

This is where the real motivation behind your support (and Pete's candidacy more broadly) comes into focus: people can't be trusted to act in their own interests, so we need an elite class of specialists from the most prestigious universities to tell us what our priorities should be. You've already decided that it's unreasonable to hope for much better than this, and so anybody who disagrees must be a head-in-the-clouds idealist and can't be trusted anyway. I never said anything about removing all checks and balances, just making the process actually reflective of majority preferences, which you seemed to be cognizant of in your initial support of Pete's caricature of representative democracy, but can't bear to follow to the terrifying conclusion of actually asking the people who they want to have power over them. Making that the new normal, instead of this nightmare that you're pushing as the best of all possible worlds.

You are partly-right and partly-wrong there. I do sympathize with your statement about me that I think "...people can't be trusted to act in their own interests, so we need an elite class of specialists from the most prestigious universities to tell us what our priorities should be."

Yes, that is often true. People are uninformed and misinformed about numerous topics, and we have to rely sometimes on others with more expertise, more time, more resources to represent us and to make choices on our own behalf.

Or we could actually try to inform them. Treating people like clueless children in matters of their own livelihood is a self-fulfilling prophecy that has resulted in the complete dissolution of the American labor movement, widespread mental illness, and the kind of infighting that distracts us from attempting to solve the real problems we face. The more we reinforce the idea that human beings are simpletons who need a curated panel of rich people to decide how their lives will play out, the more people will internalize it and surrender even more control over their circumstances to the mommies and daddies in Washington. Unfortunately for the United States, that thread of paternalism is baked directly into our government. In creating the Senate, the founding fathers were very explicit in their intention to place most decision-making power into the hands of wealthy landowners, lest the uneducated rabble get any ideas about their political influence. I would call that a monumentally arrogant attitude that needs to be discarded, not reinforced.

To go even further, people are often very stupid about knowing what is best for them, and so the age-old question comes into play of what role should the government play in our lives---Should it represent what the people want, or should it represent what is actually best for the people? They often are not the same. I have mixed feelings and undecided opinions on the topic. You categorize me as being entirely in one camp versus the other, which is not accurate.

People tend to accept the options that are presented to them, and tend not to investigate others unless they have the time and energy to do so. Every time powerful people want to shut weaker people out of the political process, they do it the same way: by depriving us of our free time and energy so we don't have the resources to educate ourselves, or even the motivation to try. Our country is no different, as evidenced by the arc of austerity that has descended upon us since the neoliberal shift away from New Deal-style politics that began with Reagan or even Carter. People in other countries are highly active in their national politics and achieve real results through popular action, despite being the same species as American people. Nobody is born apathetic.

That's why I oppose Pete's idea. It further transfers the responsibility for carving out the details of how the country should be run from the creative will of the governed to a fixed ratio of official parties in the government. Why not just establish a fixed ratio in Congress too and dispense with elections altogether if that's the way forward, and if Republican and Democratic politicians are mirror reflections of their respective constituents? Why not just have two co-Presidents, one from each party, and an even split across the Senate and House? We could appoint them by a lottery that only Rhode Scholars get to play. Then voters could just work all day, every day, without thinking about the government at all.