So, this post is really late, but I figured I'd do one anyway.
The big complaint that comes to mind regarding the judicial nomination process is that it seems to require that nominees be as boring as possible. The nominee can't really have taken a position on anything, for fear of offending one Senator or another. Elena Kagan herself, as Dean of Harvard Law School, argued that nominees should actually take positions and answer questions. Naturally, when nominated to the Court herself, Kagan did a great job avoiding saying anything interesting to the Judiciary Committee.
The idea that the court is apolitical seems unreasonably idealistic to me. A whole host of cases seem to demonstrate that the Justices essentially vote for policies that they like. Bush v. Gore comes to mind.
Of course, when I'm appointed to the Supreme Court, I will interpret the law impartially, and I will not legislate from the bench.
One thing I'm curious about: federal judges have lifetime tenure. They really have little need to please the public. So why judges have more fun? I would expect that at least some of our judges would be acting like Charlie Sheen. I guess I'll answer my own question: the kind of person who ends up appointed to the federal judiciary tends to be boring.
Being boring is the worst crime of all.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Representation
Loyal Followers,
I'm pretty sure I did rather poorly on the most recent quiz. As such, I will probably have to take this post a little more seriously...
The President should probably act primarily as a trustee. The President is chosen by the people (or at least the electors that they choose), and his job involves sophisticated issues that the voters do not have the time or inclination to study at length. Therefore, the President must make his own decisions, with the help of his conscience, his intellect, and his advisors.
Naturally, sometimes the people will be particularly passionate about an issue, especially issues with which they are quite familiar, such as education. In these situations, the President will be forced to act as a delegate, in accordance with his constituent's wishes. Therefore, ultimately all Presidents are politicos. However, I would prefer to see Presidents make principled decisions, even when they are unpopular, more often than most Presidents do. In the modern era, thanks to the "permanent campaign" that politics has become, the executive branch seems to govern based on polls, at least on issues that really resonate with the public. As I said, all Presidents and most politicians are politicos, but they seem to lean too far to the delegate side of the equation.
On certain issues, all Presidents need to act as delegates. For example, I just denounced the tendency of the modern President to only do what is popular, but in 2008, when President Bush supported the bank bailout in opposition to public opinion, he did the right thing. It hurts a little bit to say this, because I think Bush was generally a terrible President, but the bank bailout was good policy. For example, in January 2009, 61% of Americans opposed completing TARP by spending the rest of the money allocated for the program (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/16/poll-tarp-not-working-dont-spend-more-americans-say/). TARP was necessary, even though nobody liked the idea, and it kept our economy from falling into a ditch. Times are rough now, but they could be a lot worse. Bush's actions in 2008 seem to confirm the notion that Presidents are unlikely to respond to public opinion when they are quite unpopular, as Bush was in 2008. Bush could do whatever he wanted, because it didn't really matter, people hated him regardless.
When it comes to the Presidency, we really don't need our leader to be descriptively representative. The Presidency is a unique office. We have one President at a time, and he is the most powerful person in the world. He must necessarily be, as Jon Stewart put it, "embarrassingly superior" to most Americans. I want my President to be unusually smart, compassionate, and principled. If he is a man of the people, that will probably help him be more compassionate, but I don't need him to be the kind of guy I want to get a beer with. What I'm looking for from a President is substantive representation. The President needs to represent the entire country, and no individual could do that in a descriptive sense. Finally, I think he should focus most of all on representing the disadvantaged. The people to whom the government has the most responsibility are those who are down on their luck. This especially includes those under government custody: prisoners and other institutionalized people. Luckily for the middle and upper classes, disadvantaged people don't vote in large numbers, so this remains an unlikely prospect.
Love,
FKW
I'm pretty sure I did rather poorly on the most recent quiz. As such, I will probably have to take this post a little more seriously...
The President should probably act primarily as a trustee. The President is chosen by the people (or at least the electors that they choose), and his job involves sophisticated issues that the voters do not have the time or inclination to study at length. Therefore, the President must make his own decisions, with the help of his conscience, his intellect, and his advisors.
Naturally, sometimes the people will be particularly passionate about an issue, especially issues with which they are quite familiar, such as education. In these situations, the President will be forced to act as a delegate, in accordance with his constituent's wishes. Therefore, ultimately all Presidents are politicos. However, I would prefer to see Presidents make principled decisions, even when they are unpopular, more often than most Presidents do. In the modern era, thanks to the "permanent campaign" that politics has become, the executive branch seems to govern based on polls, at least on issues that really resonate with the public. As I said, all Presidents and most politicians are politicos, but they seem to lean too far to the delegate side of the equation.
On certain issues, all Presidents need to act as delegates. For example, I just denounced the tendency of the modern President to only do what is popular, but in 2008, when President Bush supported the bank bailout in opposition to public opinion, he did the right thing. It hurts a little bit to say this, because I think Bush was generally a terrible President, but the bank bailout was good policy. For example, in January 2009, 61% of Americans opposed completing TARP by spending the rest of the money allocated for the program (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/16/poll-tarp-not-working-dont-spend-more-americans-say/). TARP was necessary, even though nobody liked the idea, and it kept our economy from falling into a ditch. Times are rough now, but they could be a lot worse. Bush's actions in 2008 seem to confirm the notion that Presidents are unlikely to respond to public opinion when they are quite unpopular, as Bush was in 2008. Bush could do whatever he wanted, because it didn't really matter, people hated him regardless.
When it comes to the Presidency, we really don't need our leader to be descriptively representative. The Presidency is a unique office. We have one President at a time, and he is the most powerful person in the world. He must necessarily be, as Jon Stewart put it, "embarrassingly superior" to most Americans. I want my President to be unusually smart, compassionate, and principled. If he is a man of the people, that will probably help him be more compassionate, but I don't need him to be the kind of guy I want to get a beer with. What I'm looking for from a President is substantive representation. The President needs to represent the entire country, and no individual could do that in a descriptive sense. Finally, I think he should focus most of all on representing the disadvantaged. The people to whom the government has the most responsibility are those who are down on their luck. This especially includes those under government custody: prisoners and other institutionalized people. Luckily for the middle and upper classes, disadvantaged people don't vote in large numbers, so this remains an unlikely prospect.
Love,
FKW
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Roosevelt and Taft
The first thing to consider is that this disagreement was between Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, not FDR and Robert Taft. Confusion about this issue could derail the entire discussion.
Essentially, TR argues that the President can (and often should!) do whatever the Constitution does not prohibit him from doing. The President is a "steward" who acts in the interest what TR charmingly referred to as "the plain people" (128). TR believes in a President who slaps around neighboring countries and digs canals, all in the name of progress, because progress is what America is all about. TR was America's sweetheart, and he coined the term "bully pulpit" in reference to the Presidency. As Nelson explains, Roosevelt actively used this pulpit by going straight to the public to put pressure on Congress. According to Roosevelt, other Presidents, including Taft, saw the President as the "servant of Congress" while he considered himself a servant of "the people."
The strength of Roosevelt's position derives from his personality. Having a strong executive is great when your President is a principled dynamo like TR, who occasionally got carried away, but always acted in good faith. However, an equally ambitious but less principled President, like Nixon, can create some really interesting problems for the country.
According to our fattest President, Mr. Taft, the President should really only do the things that the Constitution directly requires of him. Taft argues for a restrained executive who defers to Congress to do most of the work of governing.
The greatest strength of Taft's argument is that it allowed an exceptionally lazy person to serve as President in the era before the President acquired a large staff to do his job for him. Today, this strength is no longer relevant, as demonstrated by the "Imperial Presidency" of the supremely lazy George W. Bush, who spent many days on his Texas ranch. Taft also argues that if the President is too strong, in times of trouble, he might get away with acting arbitrarily and invade the rights of individuals. In this case, GW Bush's administration confirms Taft's argument. Bush's post-9/11 wiretapping program was obviously inappropriate and violated individuals' rights to privacy.
My stance on the issue is that, for better or for worse, TR won the argument. Congress is still important, but the President usually runs the show.
Essentially, TR argues that the President can (and often should!) do whatever the Constitution does not prohibit him from doing. The President is a "steward" who acts in the interest what TR charmingly referred to as "the plain people" (128). TR believes in a President who slaps around neighboring countries and digs canals, all in the name of progress, because progress is what America is all about. TR was America's sweetheart, and he coined the term "bully pulpit" in reference to the Presidency. As Nelson explains, Roosevelt actively used this pulpit by going straight to the public to put pressure on Congress. According to Roosevelt, other Presidents, including Taft, saw the President as the "servant of Congress" while he considered himself a servant of "the people."
The strength of Roosevelt's position derives from his personality. Having a strong executive is great when your President is a principled dynamo like TR, who occasionally got carried away, but always acted in good faith. However, an equally ambitious but less principled President, like Nixon, can create some really interesting problems for the country.
According to our fattest President, Mr. Taft, the President should really only do the things that the Constitution directly requires of him. Taft argues for a restrained executive who defers to Congress to do most of the work of governing.
The greatest strength of Taft's argument is that it allowed an exceptionally lazy person to serve as President in the era before the President acquired a large staff to do his job for him. Today, this strength is no longer relevant, as demonstrated by the "Imperial Presidency" of the supremely lazy George W. Bush, who spent many days on his Texas ranch. Taft also argues that if the President is too strong, in times of trouble, he might get away with acting arbitrarily and invade the rights of individuals. In this case, GW Bush's administration confirms Taft's argument. Bush's post-9/11 wiretapping program was obviously inappropriate and violated individuals' rights to privacy.
My stance on the issue is that, for better or for worse, TR won the argument. Congress is still important, but the President usually runs the show.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
State of the Union, 2011
Obama's major points last night were about the government's role in the economy. Obama wants the government to invest money in certain sectors of the economy, like clean energy, in order to create jobs and compete with countries like China. The speech was definitely boring to me, since I have heard these same things over and over again for years now, but it was a good political move. Obama in putting Congressional Republicans in a difficult position, because they need to cut government spending to please their political base, but they also want to be seen as creating jobs. Obama is setting the stage for his re-election campaign by positioning himself as a common-sense Democrat who wants to invest in job creation.
Last night Obama demonstrated the power to persuade that Neustadt described. Obama cannot pass legislation himself, so his economic agenda will require Congress's consent. Technically the state of the union address is supposed to be directed at Congress, but at this point the target audience is really the voting public. Obama went to the public with his economic agenda, and hopefully the public will put pressure on Congress to cooperate. He certainly seemed to use his power to persuade effectively, and at this point I think he has gained some political capital, even though he has lost some of his ability to implement policies since the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives.
Last night Obama demonstrated the power to persuade that Neustadt described. Obama cannot pass legislation himself, so his economic agenda will require Congress's consent. Technically the state of the union address is supposed to be directed at Congress, but at this point the target audience is really the voting public. Obama went to the public with his economic agenda, and hopefully the public will put pressure on Congress to cooperate. He certainly seemed to use his power to persuade effectively, and at this point I think he has gained some political capital, even though he has lost some of his ability to implement policies since the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Changes to the Presidency
I would change several of the Constitution's rules regarding the executive office.
First, and most importantly, the office should be renamed. "President" is a boring name for what is currently a boring job. The President should be renamed the Justicator. A Justicator commands far more fear than a President, and we want our enemies to fear us. And, since the executive has assumed some rather fantastic "war" related powers over the past few decades, the office could probably use a darker, more supervillainous aura.
Since all Americans must fear the Justicator, he (it seems to always be a man) should be chosen more directly by the people. That will require abolishing the Electoral College. In the past, wildly inadequate Presidents, most recently George W. Bush, have been chosen by the Electoral College, despite having lost the popular vote. The President/Justicator wields frightening powers and must be responsive to the public, or else he is quite likely to abuse these powers. He must therefore be elected by popular vote.
The requirement that the executive be born in the United States should also be dropped. The voters aren't stupid and aren't going to elect a Manchurian candidate. If an American citizen has lived in the country for 14 years and can convince his countrymen to elect him President, the place of his birth should be irrelevant. Being "American" is about more than where a person was born. The birth requirement is archaic and has allowed the outrageous "birther" conspiracy theory to take hold. It has also prevented at least semi-plausible candidates such as Arnold Schwarzenegger from running. I wouldn't have voted for the man, but that's neither here nor there.
Finally, I would clarify within the Constitution that a term-limited former President is ineligible for the Vice Presidency. The twenty-second amendment prohibits a term-limited President from being elected President, not from serving as President, so theoretically, a former 2 term President could be elected VP and then become President upon the death or resignation of the current President. Maybe the courts would figure out how to handle this one correctly based on the spirit of the law, and the point is probably moot anyway, but I think the document should be more specific.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)