Commentary on this and that found here and there on the Internet since 2001
Friday, November 1, 2019
DOUCHEBEARD HEARTS OLIVER CROMWELL
If you're interested in how well the following would work, read any decent history of the English Civil War, paying particular attention to England after the execution of Charles I.
He's a lawyer who works for a sorosphere position paper peddler. IOW, he's not interested in practicing law or no one he cares to work for will hire him.
His generic point - that our institutions are dysfunctional and require restructuring - is at least arguable (I think true). But his take on precisely what his wrong is predictable. Partisan Democrats fancy what is wrong is that they're not getting what they want, and therefore structural adjustment must remove whatever is impeding them this year.
1. The Senate wasn't a problem until they lost control of it.
2. Gerrymandering wasn't a problem in 1984 when they benefited from it. When they lost control of enough state legislatures that it was a wash, they persuaded themselves that they were being shafted because they are emotionally incapable of acknowledging that they lose elections in ordinary competitions.
3. The pen-and-phone presidency wasn't a problem when they held it.
4. They also fancy that 'merit' selection will exclude originalist judges. That it will, not because they aren't meritorious, but because 'merit selection' schemes default to the preferences of the establishment bar (who aren't sympathetic to a jurisprudence which limits the discretion and influence of lawyers).
Our problem, really is that we're not the people we used to be. The moral quality of the professional-managerial element - comparing the 1928 cohort with the 1963 cohort - is a great deal lower - and the worst sort collect in the Democratic Party.
Democrats always forget that these changes have unintended consequences, such as when Harry Reid pushed through the filibuster change, thinking that there would never, ever be a Republican majority ever, ever, again. Well, that came back to bite him in the ass.
Eliminating the filibuster completely is a satisfactory idea. The problem is when these things are done not because they are deemed to be optimal procedure, but because you want something right now. In a well-ordered polity, the rules don't systematically favor one faction or another. The trouble is, the culture of the Democratic Party is so decayed that they cannot conceive of neutral procedural principles. So, vote fraud is acceptable, misfeasance on the part of the judiciary is acceptable, misfeasance on the part of tax inspectors and prosecutors is acceptable, rigged laws on campaign finance are acceptable, epic lying by reporters and editors is acceptable. They are acceptable because these things give your side what it wants. It did not used to be this way. Look at what got Thomas J. Dodd censured by his Senate colleagues in 1967 and try to imagine that happening today.
4 comments:
Leftists are crazy.
He's a lawyer who works for a sorosphere position paper peddler. IOW, he's not interested in practicing law or no one he cares to work for will hire him.
His generic point - that our institutions are dysfunctional and require restructuring - is at least arguable (I think true). But his take on precisely what his wrong is predictable. Partisan Democrats fancy what is wrong is that they're not getting what they want, and therefore structural adjustment must remove whatever is impeding them this year.
1. The Senate wasn't a problem until they lost control of it.
2. Gerrymandering wasn't a problem in 1984 when they benefited from it. When they lost control of enough state legislatures that it was a wash, they persuaded themselves that they were being shafted because they are emotionally incapable of acknowledging that they lose elections in ordinary competitions.
3. The pen-and-phone presidency wasn't a problem when they held it.
4. They also fancy that 'merit' selection will exclude originalist judges. That it will, not because they aren't meritorious, but because 'merit selection' schemes default to the preferences of the establishment bar (who aren't sympathetic to a jurisprudence which limits the discretion and influence of lawyers).
Our problem, really is that we're not the people we used to be. The moral quality of the professional-managerial element - comparing the 1928 cohort with the 1963 cohort - is a great deal lower - and the worst sort collect in the Democratic Party.
Guy's a twit.
Democrats always forget that these changes have unintended consequences, such as when Harry Reid pushed through the filibuster change, thinking that there would never, ever be a Republican majority ever, ever, again. Well, that came back to bite him in the ass.
Eliminating the filibuster completely is a satisfactory idea. The problem is when these things are done not because they are deemed to be optimal procedure, but because you want something right now. In a well-ordered polity, the rules don't systematically favor one faction or another. The trouble is, the culture of the Democratic Party is so decayed that they cannot conceive of neutral procedural principles. So, vote fraud is acceptable, misfeasance on the part of the judiciary is acceptable, misfeasance on the part of tax inspectors and prosecutors is acceptable, rigged laws on campaign finance are acceptable, epic lying by reporters and editors is acceptable. They are acceptable because these things give your side what it wants. It did not used to be this way. Look at what got Thomas J. Dodd censured by his Senate colleagues in 1967 and try to imagine that happening today.
Post a Comment