But I'll also point out that Parties also gather-in dots and consolidate them... some of what we're seeing is the unfocus of the parties and the revolt of the dots.
Interesting thought; I'm not sure that subsidiarity itself is a faction. It's more like a self-regulating principle of federation that seeks to balance competing entities by giving legitimate autonomy and a self interest in not allowing authority to become too concentrated... both by decentralizing primary authority and providing the framework that prohibits consolidation. I should note also that this is a bias that carries into commercial projects as well. Ideally any entity that is XY big has counter-balancing entities which are also XY big. The important distinction is that there isn't an Uber power that creates the sub-powers.
But yes, the danger to any sort of decentralization is centralization... and the temptation to centralize in the name of efficiency is the ever present danger in politics as it is in commerce. The main thing to consider is that we're failing on all fronts with regards centralization. If we don't start an incremental movement away from these tendencies (which I fear are more enshrined in our popular consciousness than we realize) then we'll wonder how it is we've lost what little subsidiarity we currently have.
Not sure if that helps or misses the mark... there's no political system that isn't in danger of constant decay. Subsidiarity looks to address the decay by providing less centralized / multi-polar polity that depends upon a minimal (rather than maximal) solidarity. Think of it as 'mere solidarity' rather than uniform genomic singularity.
Agreed. It might be possible to change some voting paradigms (if not the entire regime) to open up space for more parties... ranked choice plus run-off systems could change dynamics so coalitions are formed around actual platforms and support traded for policy objectives. Really wouldn't have to be that radical just to alter the first past the post plurality that's locking us into the duopoly.
I've looked at this again and again over the years and my opinion is no.
We usually overlook the 7-2 per curiam decision which found "the use of different standards of counting in different counties violated the Equal Protection Clause" and the tighter decision was with regards remedy and timing.
Given the first, I'd argue that the partisan stance was the remedy which would have jeopardized the functioning of the Electoral College. That is, by making the remedy vote closer than it was, it gave the appearance of partisanship that isn't the fault of the consistent jurists.
So the partisan position is: You're violating the due process clause in your methods, and cannot meet the deadlines in the code of the Electoral college... but do carry on.
Its certainly unfortunate that Florida FUBARed it's electoral mechanics and we didn't really have a plan or process in place to deal with such an event... but simple power politics of voting against the law to seat your guy? No, I really don't see it.
The logical obverse of the campaign posturing... "see, we're all that stands between you and anarchy - which is why you have to vote for us even though we already confirmed ACB and therefore you don't... not really"
But yes, I'd say nominating one's daughter who isn't a lawyer would indeed signal something else.
Neither of us know what the hypothetical legal challenge might be... so I'm not making a statement on how all the justices would rule. But the idea that Trump (or any president) has some sort of leverage over the judges they nominate is just strange.
To be clear, the arguments aren't that ACB has the sort of judicial philosophy that would favor a narrrow interpretation of X... just that she's somehow going to vote in favor of Trump regardless of whatever judicial philosophy she might hold... because, and this is the important part, she 'owes' him.
The argument is literally since she was appointed by the president she has to recuse herself... proximity of time seems to be the only reason that the other two justices also appointed by Trump would not(?) have to recuse themselves. Practically speaking *every* justice was appointed by a President of one party or the other, so I'm not sure they even have standing to rule on the matter.
So Recusal pundits want us to think that Barrett (or any justice) is somehow beholden to the President who appoints them... the moment after their appointment is confirmed and constitutionally protected? What an odd supposition. It requires us to ignore lived experience of the past, well, ever.
I have no idea what form a (possible) constitutional challenge in the upcoming might (hypothetically) take... but among the Federalist Society judges that you'd get, Barrett is probably a better bet *not* to go all-in for Trump.
On “A Third Way: The American Solidarity Party’s Case”
Let slip the dots of war.
But I'll also point out that Parties also gather-in dots and consolidate them... some of what we're seeing is the unfocus of the parties and the revolt of the dots.
"
Doughnuts and coffee in the basement for all people of good will... we'll see that you get an invitation.
"
Interesting thought; I'm not sure that subsidiarity itself is a faction. It's more like a self-regulating principle of federation that seeks to balance competing entities by giving legitimate autonomy and a self interest in not allowing authority to become too concentrated... both by decentralizing primary authority and providing the framework that prohibits consolidation. I should note also that this is a bias that carries into commercial projects as well. Ideally any entity that is XY big has counter-balancing entities which are also XY big. The important distinction is that there isn't an Uber power that creates the sub-powers.
But yes, the danger to any sort of decentralization is centralization... and the temptation to centralize in the name of efficiency is the ever present danger in politics as it is in commerce. The main thing to consider is that we're failing on all fronts with regards centralization. If we don't start an incremental movement away from these tendencies (which I fear are more enshrined in our popular consciousness than we realize) then we'll wonder how it is we've lost what little subsidiarity we currently have.
Not sure if that helps or misses the mark... there's no political system that isn't in danger of constant decay. Subsidiarity looks to address the decay by providing less centralized / multi-polar polity that depends upon a minimal (rather than maximal) solidarity. Think of it as 'mere solidarity' rather than uniform genomic singularity.
"
Agreed. It might be possible to change some voting paradigms (if not the entire regime) to open up space for more parties... ranked choice plus run-off systems could change dynamics so coalitions are formed around actual platforms and support traded for policy objectives. Really wouldn't have to be that radical just to alter the first past the post plurality that's locking us into the duopoly.
On “Open Thread: Amy Coney Barrett Confirmation Hearings”
I've looked at this again and again over the years and my opinion is no.
We usually overlook the 7-2 per curiam decision which found "the use of different standards of counting in different counties violated the Equal Protection Clause" and the tighter decision was with regards remedy and timing.
Given the first, I'd argue that the partisan stance was the remedy which would have jeopardized the functioning of the Electoral College. That is, by making the remedy vote closer than it was, it gave the appearance of partisanship that isn't the fault of the consistent jurists.
So the partisan position is: You're violating the due process clause in your methods, and cannot meet the deadlines in the code of the Electoral college... but do carry on.
Its certainly unfortunate that Florida FUBARed it's electoral mechanics and we didn't really have a plan or process in place to deal with such an event... but simple power politics of voting against the law to seat your guy? No, I really don't see it.
"
The logical obverse of the campaign posturing... "see, we're all that stands between you and anarchy - which is why you have to vote for us even though we already confirmed ACB and therefore you don't... not really"
But yes feeding frenzy is indiscriminate.
"
Oh, according to Ted Cruz? Well then. :-)
But yes, I'd say nominating one's daughter who isn't a lawyer would indeed signal something else.
Neither of us know what the hypothetical legal challenge might be... so I'm not making a statement on how all the justices would rule. But the idea that Trump (or any president) has some sort of leverage over the judges they nominate is just strange.
To be clear, the arguments aren't that ACB has the sort of judicial philosophy that would favor a narrrow interpretation of X... just that she's somehow going to vote in favor of Trump regardless of whatever judicial philosophy she might hold... because, and this is the important part, she 'owes' him.
The argument is literally since she was appointed by the president she has to recuse herself... proximity of time seems to be the only reason that the other two justices also appointed by Trump would not(?) have to recuse themselves. Practically speaking *every* justice was appointed by a President of one party or the other, so I'm not sure they even have standing to rule on the matter.
"
As far as I can tell... the confirmation hearings are anything but.
Watching Senators petition the nominee as subjects would petition their rulers is illuminating on how exactly our particular disfunction works.
"
So Recusal pundits want us to think that Barrett (or any justice) is somehow beholden to the President who appoints them... the moment after their appointment is confirmed and constitutionally protected? What an odd supposition. It requires us to ignore lived experience of the past, well, ever.
I have no idea what form a (possible) constitutional challenge in the upcoming might (hypothetically) take... but among the Federalist Society judges that you'd get, Barrett is probably a better bet *not* to go all-in for Trump.