Flake needs to stay in order to preserve his record of voting for Trump 90% of the time.
 

Motives for hanging on vary, but they mostly revolve around the fact that, once you decide you're not running for reelection, you're free to screw over the people who voted you into office. The threat of not being reelected gone, they have no remaining leverage over you, so you don't have to pretend you meant anything you said while running for the office, or care what your constituents think.

For the next year, Arizona has two Senators who don't really have any reason to even pretend they care what the voters of Arizona think about anything. That's a pretty scary thing in a democracy.

It isn't really a problem you can solve, while retaining fixed terms of office. But the parlimentary "Call an election on short notice, when the party in power thinks things look good for it." model has it's problems, too.

I sometimes muse about constitutional changes I'd like to see, that have no chance. One of them would be to treat votes for legislators as revocable proxies, rather than irreversible commitments, so that legislators could be taken down a peg or three when they decide the voters' opinions don't matter. Not really compatible with the secret ballot, though, which is (one reason!) why it's just a fantasy. Perhaps a mechanism for snap recall elections could be worked up, though?

Mark, 90% puts Flake at the lower end of "voting for Trump" among Republican Senators. It's not an outrageously high percentage, given that most of the votes were on things that you'd expect most Republicans to agree on, like judicial nominations even rabid Never Trump people admit are great. It's not like Trump is governing in a way radically different from other Republican Presidents, aside from apparently actually having meant some of his campaign promises. Which I admit comes as a shocker to professional politicians.
 

Gerard's:

"A more persuasive explanation, though, is simply that scores of officials over the past two centuries have refused to quit when they really should have."

requires some examples of persons who "really should have" quit to properly assess Gerard's "explanation."
 

It has been suggested that Sec'y. of State Tillerson may be hanging around because of personal income tax issues relative to his sale of certain assets required, for ethical reasons, to take the job, with deferment of recognition of gains while so serving, not quitting until the gains become long term capital gains. But Trump could fire him before then. So Tillerson seemed to have to say that Trump was "smart" after referring to Trump as a "******* moron." (Perhaps the special ethical tax laws involved provide some protection for Tillerson in case of a firing.)
 

"One of them would be to treat votes for legislators as revocable proxies, rather than irreversible commitments, so that legislators could be taken down a peg or three when they decide the voters' opinions don't matter."

"Arizona has two Senators who don't really have any reason to even pretend they care what the voters of Arizona think about anything. That's a pretty scary thing in a democracy."

This from a guy who has repeatedly supported repealing the 17th Amendment. You can't make this stuff up.
 

Brett, I agree with your last paragraph. My point was that Flake is behaving like an ordinary Republican, not like someone bound and determined to fight the leader of the Republican Party.
 

Let me say upfront that these days it seems more people are resigning and I'm not sure how many actually are lingering on when they should not be in that respect. Flake can do some good in office so not sure why he is supposed to resign. Putting aside the issue of presidents, I'm not really sure how much of an issue this is. Fixed offices have some merit and 1/100 or 1/435 can finish their terms in my view.

It's not like Trump is governing in a way radically different from other Republican Presidents.

This would be respecting various policies.

OTOH, in various other ways, he is "governing" in radically different ways, which is why not only Flake is so upset at what he is doing & why people of different ideological views wish he did more to restrain Trump. He can do this while voting for most or even nearly all of the judges etc. Now, not every single one of these judicial nominations are getting strong bipartisan support. And, various executive nominees maybe deserve some more opposition from principled Republicans.

As to "screwing" people, there are various restraints on legislators and given they repeatedly are re-elected by great margins, elections by themselves are limited checks on what they are doing, especially popular individuals who are re-elected largely on name recognition and personality.

This would include wanting a job when they leave, including future office or lobbying, which would entail be loyal to the party and generally the people who elected them. The legislators also are restrained by a sense of duty developed over time, ideological sentiments natural to them and so forth. Finally, in a republican system, legislators are not supposed to be simply tied to the voters, but also acting on a sense of individual duty.
 

Members in good standing of the progressive ruling class like Flake and McCain are there to exercise power to enact their own policy preferences, not to answer to the voters and certainly not to enact their contrary will.

This is a common progressive world view. Remember when Brett and I were the only ones here arguing on behalf of the quaint belief that the people’s representatives were morally bound to enact the will of their voters like any other legal agent?

Lord Acton’s dictim “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” gets to the core of the problem. The only way to curb government corruption is to limit government power. Term limits would appear to be the most apt limit for this type of corruption.
 

Voters' will, opinions may conflict with facts and with a Senator's obligations concerning the Constitution. SPAM, speaking for himself and Brett, disagrees:

"This is a common progressive world view. Remember when Brett and I were the only ones here arguing on behalf of the quaint belief that the people’s representatives were morally bound to enact the will of their voters like any other legal agent?"

Congressmen's oath of office is a tad different from "any other legal agent."

Joe makes the point with:

"Finally, in a republican system, legislators are not supposed to be simply tied to the voters, but also acting on a sense of individual duty."

SPAM, 'taint quaint.

 

SPAM credits Lord Acton on power corrupting, which he failed to do on an earlier thread at this Blog. But just what is the type of corruption that SPAM addresses with his closing sentence at 11:13 AM:

"Term limits would appear to be the most apt limit for this type of corruption."

Flake is in his first term (and apparently his last). Is SPAM claiming that Flake's remaining in office until his term ends instead of resigning is power corrupting?
 

"the people’s representatives were morally bound to enact the will of their voters"

"Term limits would appear to be the most apt limit for this"

Let's help the will of the voters by restricting it! Again, you can't make this stuff up.

Also, the idea of the value of representatives being more than a mere expression of current voter preferences and instead exercising their own considered judgement about what's best for those they represent doesn't come from the Progressive Era, it comes from the *Founding.*
 

Mr. W's last point was expressed in a good bit in the musical 1776 with a reference to the conservative Edmund Burke. Before the 17A, state legislatures did not have some ability to bound their senators by direct instruction though they could provide hortatory messages. Senators always were independent actors in that respect.

One article argues Sen. Flake should run for re-election, trying to convince his voters (particularly Republican primary voters) that his approach is correct. He is concluding that he would lose, which might be true though that might be pessimistic, especially since we don't know what will happen next year. I'm not sure if it will be as hopeless as Stephen Douglas' trying to convince the South in 1860.

Also relevant to a regular Mr. W. theme, an Obama regulation was overturned last night, one of many that was changed by the Republican Congress now that they have one of their own in the White House. This is proper as to procedure though perhaps it would be a good policy to spend more time before reversal. The merits is a policy matter.
 

"This from a guy who has repeatedly supported repealing the 17th Amendment. You can't make this stuff up."

Yes, I do think that the 17th amendment should be repealed. Fat chance of it happening, but it would be a good idea. The people already have the House to serve as their agent, the Senate was to serve as the states' agent, so as to preserve the separation of powers between state and federal government against centralizing tendencies.

However, as it is, we DO have the 17th amendment, which makes the Senate, too, the people's agent. And it is far better that they be faithful agents, either out of conviction or fear, than that they be wild cannons who don't care what the people or the states think.

So there's no inconsistency here.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Mr. W:

The purpose of a representative democracy is to elect representation in government, not to establish long term cults of personality.

Time in office allows the accumulation of power and power leads to corruption.


 

Shag:

A representative democracy means representatives of the demos or the people. We are not electing monarchs.

What precisely is the purpose of electing a representative to government if not to represent us?

Why do respresentatives and political parties have platforms between which voters choose if not to enact them once elected?

The oath of office to defend the Constitution’s limits on government and guarantees of liberty is the only check on representatives enacting the will of the people. Representatives refusing to enact the constitutional will of their voters to impose their own will or the will of those who buy their votes is the worst form of corruption of a representative democracy.
 

Brett buys into SPAM's "agent" thesis, embellishing with "faithful agent" with his own lips moving via his keyboard. There are various kinds of agents with differing responsibilities that go beyond their principals. For example, SPAM as an attorney is an agent for a client, with certain obligations imposed on SPAM regarding the manner in which SPAM represents his client. But the client is limited in the client's desire to have SPAM do as the client wills. SPAM as an officer of the court has certain responsibilities to the judicial system. Also, SPAM took an oath regarding the federal and state constitutions. There are codes for attorneys to abide by that address certain things an attorney cannot/should not do that the client may will or direct the attorney to do.

As to legislators under the federal Constitution, they take an oath to defend and support the Constitution. While legislators represent their constituents, who are not limited necessarily to voters, legislators are to use their judgments. The Constitution has no provision requiring devotion of legislators to a particular political party that a legislator may belong to. Not all of a legislator's constituents necessarily voted for the legislator. How does a legislator learn of the will of constituents, voters and otherwise? How many of them? The legislator represents constituents who may have a contrary will. Does majority rule? Might the will of the majority be based on information that is clearly in error and perhaps violative of the Constitution or of other laws? Is the legislator deprived of exercising the legislator's judgment based upon experience as a legislator and in life?

Brett can perhaps be excused as he was not trained in the law. But there is no excuse for SPAM's rant. Yes, a legislator represents constituents, even those who did not vote for that legislator. Is the duty of a legislator to poll constituents before taking any action as a legislator? How thorough should such a poll be? And should majority constituent view govern the action of the legislator even if in the judgment of the legislator that view was wrong, e.g., negatively impacting or discriminating against a minority of the legislator's constituents?

SPAM closes with this rant:

"The oath of office to defend the Constitution’s limits on government and guarantee is the only check on representatives enacting the will of the people. Representatives refusing to enact the constitutional will of their voters to impose their own will or the will of those who buy their votes is the worst form of corruption of a representative democracy."

Where is it provided in the Constitution that legislators are required to enact the will of the people (however that will might be determined)? Yes, a legislator may not be reelected if the voters object. But representative governance calls for the judgment of legislators, not following rote polling of constituents. And just what is that "constitution will" referenced in that convoluted closing sentence with built in straw men?
 

I'd as soon listen to the ideas on the duty of Senators to be responsive to the people by those who'd like to repeal the 17th Amendment than I would the ideas of a priest on how to have good sex.
 

Bart's comment is non-responsive to my two points, which are 1. the you're proposing to further the will of the people by restricting it and 2. that the Founders themselves were big fans of our officials exercising their own judgement apart from popular passions of the day. Of course, reverence for the Founding and it's ideals is as consistent for many modern movement conservatives as their fealty to federalism, populism, and small government, that is, only when it suits the partisan goal of the moment.
 

"Also relevant to a regular Mr. W. theme, an Obama regulation was overturned last night"

Yep, how many times has Bart called such an event an impossibility here?
 

The people already have the House to serve as their agent, the Senate was to serve as the states' agent

"The state" didn't elect senators. Actual legislators, legislators often pledged to certain candidates [e.g., Douglas and Lincoln], voted by people, did. Now, people directly elect senators, which changes things only somewhat really.

The Senate provided a means for states to have equal representation, not "agency" as such, as states. So, two senators, voted for separately, represented the whole state as a body, providing an equality for each state. This is still the case.

so as to preserve the separation of powers between state and federal government against centralizing tendencies

I'm not sure how much different the "centralizing tendencies" will be in Mississippi or NY had the legislators, today likely pledged to certain candidates, choosing senators as compared to individual voters doing so directly. The Senate is still split by states, two each. This furthers federalism and state equality.

However, as it is, we DO have the 17th amendment, which makes the Senate, too, the people's agent. And it is far better that they be faithful agents, either out of conviction or fear, than that they be wild cannons who don't care what the people or the states think.

The legislators who elected the senators before by this argument were the "people's agents." Query if the agents (senators) of my agents (state legislators) are somehow not my agents too? Aren't the people supreme in the end there too?

Members of Congress are not "wild cannons" in practice in various respects though as representatives they are supposed to have some independent judgment, including responsibility pursuant to their oath or affirmation as Shag notes. Lame duck periods are factored into the Constitution, perhaps the "wild card" nature was understood to be a somehow useful aspect though Sandy Levinson in the past has argued at least for presidents it is too long (I was somewhat dubious).
 

Shag: Is the duty of a legislator to poll constituents before taking any action as a legislator?

The only poll which counts is the election. Representatives should do what they pomised the voters to get elected.

After the election, a representative should spend at least as much time back in her district or state as they do in DC discussing the current issues with their constituents.

And should majority constituent view govern the action of the legislator even if in the judgment of the legislator that view was wrong, e.g., negatively impacting or discriminating against a minority of the legislator's constituents?

Unless that will violates the Constitution’s limits and guarantees, the representative should enact the will of the people or resign.

Where is it provided in the Constitution that legislators are required to enact the will of the people (however that will might be determined)?

If the Constitution included all self evident truths concerning the operation of a republic, the document would more closely resemble Blackstone’s Commentaries. Tom Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence provided perhaps the most concise description of the proper relationship between the people and their government:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

Mr. W:

The will of the people expressed in an election is to enact their preferred policies, not to elect a particular person. Once again, representative democracy should not be a cult of personality.

Next, the Obama bureaucracy decreed over 30,000 pages of regulations. How may pages has this Congress repealed? 20,000 pages of this regulatory tidal wave involved imposing Obamacare. Every single Obamacare “repeal and replace” bill supported by the GOP leadership protected nearly all of those regulations.

The most fundmental changes to the Obama era reguations are being implemented by decree of the Trump bureaucracy. The bureaucratic dictatorship still rules.
 

"will of the people expressed in an election is to enact their preferred policies, not to elect a particular person"

That's just false, both as an empirical matter (this is why 'personal life' scandals often sink a candidate even though their policy stances are popular among their voters) and in terms of how our Founders set up and envisioned our system to work. We're not a direct democracy or a nation of referendum, we're a republic, and the Founders were quite clear on the duty of our representatives to be more than a simple reflection of the political passions of the electorate at any moment.

More to the point, you don't defend the will of the people being enacted by measures restricting that very will of the people.

As to your point about regulations, you're just moving the goalposts. You have, hyperbolically, previously said we have an obvious administrative tyranny and pointed to no regulations with serious economic effect being reversed. You were wrong then (I pointed out where new administrations reverse previous administrations regulations and Congress has reversed executive administrations as well, both simply in the re-authorization of bills and explicitly such as the Clinton era ergonomics regulations) and more wrong now (with the current example). The fact that most regulations don't get reversed proves nothing more than that most of them are fairly popular, the demonstrable fact remains that they have been and therefore can be reversed when our elected representatives want to.
 

Mr. W:

It is true that Congress is reversing expinentially more regulations than in the past. They have gone from one or two to a handful. When compared with the production of regulations, though, Congress is trimming a hair or two and you are calling it a haircut.
 

Gerard's post focuses on Sen. Flake and his announcement that he would not seek reelection for a second term. Flake was elected in 2012 SPAM seems to take the position that that was the time the will of the voters is key. Of course, there were votes for Flake's opponent; presumably they are to be ignored as far as the will of the voters is concerned. Flake is well into the fifth year of his term. Apparently, according to SPAM, the will of the voters who voted for Flake in November of 2012 governs Flake throughout his six year term, regardless of the circumstances of Flake's constituents over time as well as Flake's experiences as a Senator.

I don't know what was Gerard's goal with this post, but it seems to me that Gerard was suggesting it might be appropriate under the circumstances if Flake actually resigned. I don't know how much thought Gerard gave to this. He provided no specific reason why Flake should resign. I note Gerard has not responded to my comment at 8:12 AM by providing examples of legislators who should have resigned.

Rather than address Flake's situation, both Brett and SPAM come up with their "agency" thesis which fails constitutionally. It's obvious Brett and SPAM take this specious position because of their support for Trump, based on things Flake has said about Trump. I don't care if Flake stays on or resigns.
 

No, to use your analogy, you're arguing that the barber can't cut hair, and I'm pointing to where he does, and you're reply is 'well, that's just a trim!'

That people prefer long hair with infrequent trims is no proof that the barber can't and doesn't cut hair.
 

I don't see any logical reason why Flake should resign. He doesn't work for Trump. If he resigned the governor would appoint a replacement to fill the seat until the 2018 election. Since the governor is a Republican (and Arizona law, which seems of questionable constitutionality, actually requires the appointee to be of the same party as the previous occupant), this means that Flake's replacement would almost certainly be someone Trump likes better than Flake. So this would be an even odder way of demonstrating opposition to Trump than the widespread suggestion that Flake should vote against his own conscience on bills or nominations just to spite Trump.
 

I agree, he's under no obligation to resign. He should just stick with fulfilling the campaign promises that got him elected.

It's only if he can't bring himself to do that, that he should resign.

If you take a job promising to do something, and you find you can't bring yourself to do it, you're morally obliged to resign from the job. Not hold onto the power you were given under false pretense.

What's basically going on in the case of a few Senators is that we've learned they pulled a bait and switch on the voters, and now they're trying to portray the "switch" part of that as a sudden attack of conscience, rather than just their con job being exposed.

These Senators aren't heroes, they're con-men who set out to cheat the voters of actual representation.
 

Brett, do you see Flake as an example of someone involved in 'bait and switch?' He votes with Trump 90% of the time, and where he doesn't it's often in a way that could be interpreted as more conservative. His only conservative 'apostasy' seems to be in calling Trump an intemperant jerk, essentially. I you've commented that Trump should exercise more 'mic control.' Do you dislike Flake?
 

Brett's reaction to the mms comment:

"I agree, he's [Flake] under no obligation to resign. He should just stick with fulfilling the campaign promises that got him elected."

is a reminder that Flake was elected in 2012, not 2016. I don't know what his campaign promises were that got Flake elected in 2012, but I doubt any relationship of such campaign promises addressing Flake's problems with Trump. But it is politically dumb to stick to campaign promises that upon examination can't be supported. Flake as Senator presumably learned a tad from his experience in the Senate that might have indicated that some campaign promises were just political hyperbole. Brett's agency thesis is shallow, constitutionally speaking. Brett's thesis would permit him as principal to direct a legislator he voted for to keep a particular campaign promise, reminding that legislator that he, Brett, is a 2nd A absolutist.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], methinks mls is an establishment Republican and part of the DC swamp that Trump is still attempting to pull the plug on. Resist!

 

Text Edit came up with "mms" instead of "mls." So I've tried again.
 

Shag, recall that Brett said campaign rhetoric and promises should be ignored by courts looking into the motives of things like Trump's travel bans, but then comes here today in this discussion and says politicians should be duty bound to follow through on what they said in the campaign.

On an aside, I've learned to correct myself when spelling your handle, but I still often write 'Shaq' at first, and when I think of you I honestly think of an older Shaquille O'Neal sitting at his computer in Brooklyn!
 

"I don't know what his campaign promises were that got Flake elected in 2012, but I doubt any relationship of such campaign promises addressing Flake's problems with Trump."

Well, for one thing, building a wall on the border. Back in 2012, he was all for it. Now that it might happen, he's attacking it.

"Shag, recall that Brett said campaign rhetoric and promises should be ignored by courts looking into the motives of things like Trump's travel bans, but then comes here today in this discussion and says politicians should be duty bound to follow through on what they said in the campaign."

I don't think it's terribly confusing: Judges are charged with enforcing law, not morality. It should be of no interest to them whether somebody was elected promising the opposite of what they did once elected, as doing so isn't illegal. They should only care whether the policy in question is permitted by the Constitution.

Many things are perfectly legal, and should be legal, which are none the less immoral.

Further, it doesn't really matter if Trump promised to ban all entry by Muslims during the campaign, because his executive order rather conspicuously didn't do that.
 

Brett, an integral component of law in the common law is the mental state of the person doing the act in question. Motive can matter. If I pat down every tenth airline passenger, that's one thing, if I pat down every black passenger, that's another, right?

"it doesn't really matter if Trump promised to ban all entry by Muslims during the campaign, because his executive order rather conspicuously didn't do that."

If a Democrat governor promised to cut off funds to all rural GOP districts in his campaign, and then, when in office, introduced a measure that would cut the aforementioned to a list of districts that were only rural GOP districts, would the fact that not all rural GOP districts were on the list excuse the action from criticism of bias?
 

campaign rhetoric and promises should be ignored by courts looking into the motives of things like Trump's travel bans

Brett opposes the long time practice of using statements of alleged violators as a factor in determining if an equal protection (here of an establishment clause sort too) violation occurs. This is not about not liking morality of the law as such.

It also is basically said that Trump did not go as far as he said he would. If I say I was going to kill dentists (being an anti-dentite) but only beat up dentists from seven dentist rich areas, does my previous statements have no relevancy? Same here. Trump did pass a travel ban that for various reasons was found problematic, in part because there is evidence of bad motive. Even if it didn't go all the way.
 

You know, I'm sure Brett and Bart see me as just another Trump hating total liberal. But my immediate thought about the first travel ban was: holy Moses, he didn't even make the least attempt to protect it from the Establishment Clause attacks that his bigoted campaign comments were sure to invite. If he had just included even one non-Muslim country, like North Korea, then as a judge I'd happily have approved it. But it was like he was actually courting this challenge, because what many of his followers would like to do is to generalize policy re: all people of a particular faith.
 

And, joe, re your anti-dentite comment, I'll note that just last night I was looking at an article about Bryan Cranston's role in Seinfeld. Synchronicity!
 

Reference is also made to a "few" senators who had a bait and switch.

Who are these special "few" especially given Brett's constant cynical view of politicians generally? Republicans who stopped supporting things when Obama and Democrats did? I'm sure differences can be found there, but differences can be found in most cases, if one looks hard enough. Shag's discussion of the reality of governing aside, I'm a bit surprised only a few are at fault here.

The talk of "conscience" these days is not about opposing walls but things like McCain consistently supporting regular order even when it interferes with his long-term policy sentiments. Anyway, found a summary of Jeff Flake on the issues:

http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Jeff_Flake_Immigration.htm

"Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border"

So, he supported some sort of fence and barrier, but recently said Trump's wall idea was impractical. A local paper noted in April:

Flake has made it clear that he'd rather see the billions of dollars that could be used for a wall spent on surveillance — specifically, drones, cameras, and more border patrol agents. ...

Bottom line: Flake's been pretty consistent in his opposition to the border wall, but he is up for re-election next year. It's still possible that he might end up changing his vote in order to please his Republican base."

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/heres-which-arizona-politicians-support-the-border-wall-and-which-ones-oppose-it-9274495

I don't know specifically what was the nature of the "wall" campaign promise, but his views on immigration issues have long been fairly moderate:

WASHINGTON – A bipartisan immigration bill set to be introduced in the House later this week includes a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants but would also require these residents to leave the United States and return legally before being eligible to change their status.

http://www.ocregister.com/2007/03/21/legalization-path-planned/

As to resigning if you can't bring yourself to do things, people do change their minds on things, including when they join Congress and understand the big picture. This isn't some politician thing. People's views develop over time. They might say "I won't want to have a child if I marry you" and then later decide they want one. Their spouse can then decide if it is worth it to stay. Voters have such an option at election time, and over the years, they made their judgments.
 

Bryan Cranston is a treasure. Guy has range.
 

"If I say I was going to kill dentists (being an anti-dentite) but only beat up dentists from seven dentist rich areas, does my previous statements have no relevancy?"

The problem with your dentist analogy is that beating up dentists is criminal. Establishing bias becomes irrelevant, where the supposedly biased conduct would be illegal even in the absence of bias.

Instead, here we have a policy which, were we to set aside claims of bias, would be legal.

An analogy I've used before: If a sheriff wins election promising to deal with "black criminal gangs", and there happen to not be any white criminal gangs in his jurisdiction, is he therefore barred from acting against criminal gangs on account of racism?

We live in a world where almost all state sponsors of terror, and failed states, happen to be Islamic countries. Any rational policy addressing them is going to exhibit disparate impact.

This reasoning based on animus takes you too far. It effectively gives the courts an excuse to second guess the President anywhere unavoidable disparate impact shows up. Maybe it's illegal for him to be fighting ISIS, because they're Islamic? This reasoning would take you there.

My reasoning is that the courts have to restrict themselves to judging the policy, not the policy maker.


 

Brett, making policy on the basis of religion is illegal too (see the First Amendment).

I'd also like it if you'd answer my two specific questions above.
 

"Brett, an integral component of law in the common law is the mental state of the person doing the act in question. Motive can matter. If I pat down every tenth airline passenger, that's one thing, if I pat down every black passenger, that's another, right?"

Generally speaking, if you do something that's illegal, but lack mens rea, you might get off. That's a rather different sort of reasoning than the sort that makes an otherwise legal act into a crime on the basis of inferred motive.

The problem here is that you're tacitly assuming that, absent bad motive, you wouldn't just be patting down black passengers. But suppose there was a perfectly good reason why you might only pat down black passengers for that flight? You've got intelligence indicating that an unknown passenger has a bomb, and only know that he's black? Do you have to molest the white passengers, too, pointlessly?

Disparate impact reasoning tacitly assumes all groups are similarly situated, and thus disparate impact is evidence of discrimination. But in the real world, groups are frequently NOT similarly situated. Most terrorists are Muslims. Blacks commit half the murders in a country where they're a sixth of the population.

Do we have to constrain our public discourse, go tippy toe around certain subjects, to avoid acknowledging that the world doesn't actually match your theoretical construct?

"If a Democrat governor promised to cut off funds to all rural GOP districts in his campaign, and then, when in office, introduced a measure that would cut the aforementioned to a list of districts that were only rural GOP districts, would the fact that not all rural GOP districts were on the list excuse the action from criticism of bias?"

Depends on whether he can produce a rational reason for the list. Suppose that he promised to cut off funding for rural GOP DMV offices. And, on being elected, took a list of DMV offices that were redundant, constructed by the prior Republican administration, and cut off their funding.

Would the fact that they happened to all be rural GOP DMVs make their being determined to be surplus by a Republican irrelevant?

Because that's what literally happened here, and you know it: Trump used a list compiled by the previous administration. It was all Islamic countries, not because Obama was biased against Islam, but because that's the fact on the ground: Almost all state sponsors of terror and failed states are Islamic.

Something I guess we're never supposed to acknowlege or discuss. Screw that, let's discuss it!
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

We now have documentary evidence Team Clinton and the DNC paid the opposition reserach firm Fusion GPS to manufacture lies, including Russian disinformation, about Trump. No real suprise this happened or the Democrats lied about their role in this Russian collusion for months now.

The dynamite in this story is the Obama/Comey FBI also paid Fusion GPS for these slanders, which begs the following questions:

1) Did FBI use these lies as a pretext to open their “counterintelligence” investigation of Team Trump?

2) Did FBI use these lies to support their warrant applications to the FISC to spy on Team Trump?

3) Did Comey collude with the Obama administration to spy on Team Trump?

4) What do you think are the chances Jack or Marty will address these issues out of their deep concern over the “national surveillance state?”
 

Brett at 10:21 AM:


"An analogy I've used before: If a sheriff wins election promising to deal with "black criminal gangs", and there happen to not be any white criminal gangs in his jurisdiction, is he therefore barred from acting against criminal gangs on account of racism?"

This is Crackers! Did Brett use this in a Jim Crow one-step program? Couldn't the sheriff have promised to deal with "criminal gangs" period? To whom was he appealing? White supremacists?

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], I wonder why Brett's analogy failed to describe the sheriff as "black," "white," or whatever? This is just another coloring book analogy of Brett's. I would assume the sheriff's oaths of office would require him to act against all criminal gangs, even "white criminal gangs" that might surface after the sheriff's election. But keep in mind Brett's agency thesis about campaign promises.
 

Let's run with our example:

"Depends on whether he can produce a rational reason for the list. Suppose that he promised to cut off funding for rural GOP DMV offices. And, on being elected, took a list of DMV offices that were redundant, constructed by the prior Republican administration, and cut off their funding."

I mean, a Democrat politician in the campaign promises to cut off funding from GOP districts, and then when in office runs with a plan that cuts off *only* GOP district funding. And you don't think anyone can legitmately ask, is this guy just f*cking Republicans here? Come on Brett. You'd be howling at the moon if that happened!
 

The problem with your dentist analogy is that beating up dentists is criminal. Establishing bias becomes irrelevant, where the supposedly biased conduct would be illegal even in the absence of bias.

Instead, here we have a policy which, were we to set aside claims of bias, would be legal.

The debate here was use of campaign statements as a factor in weighing the legitimacy of something done shortly after the person was in office that was related but not the same thing in all details. You are changing the subject.

When determining if someone did something wrong, their statements is repeatedly used as a factor to help determine things. That alone isn't used and wasn't used here. It has to be done carefully but not doing it at all is simply bad policy. Finally, no, bias alone isn't the reason the ban was a problem. Invalid application of the relevant legal procedures in place was also flagged.

all state sponsors of terror, and failed states, happen to be Islamic countries

Actually this isn't true -- failed states and terror do not only come from Islamic countries. And, as Mr. W. has noted, there are something like a billion Muslims or whatever out there. It is simply impractical to with a heavy hand use that factor alone here. So, there are more carefully applied processes available to deal with the question, and experts in fighting terror have expressed why the ban is a lousy idea.


 

As to the subject of this thread, Federalist 57 discussed the relationship between the people and their elected representatives and the hope that elections would mainatin this relationship:

If we consider the situation of the men on whom the free suffrages of their fellow-citizens may confer the representative trust, we shall find it involving every security which can be devised or desired for their fidelity to their constituents.
 

SPAM now further shifts from the topic of the post. Perhaps SPAM has not been exposed to TPM's Josh Marshall's exposures of a story that has long been known. I rather get more details on the Republican who initially funded the dossier as opposition research on behalf of then GOP candidate Jeb Bush. So Clinton picked up on opposition research. TPM provides a valuable timeline of what has been mostly an old story. Recall Donald, Jr.'s meeting with "Russia" to get the dirt on Clinton? Apparently this opposition research for the benefit of Trump was not a problem. But the dossier did not involve collaborating with Russia, rather investigating Trump's Russia connections, to provide political fodder for Jeb Bush. But let's find out what the FBI is supposed to have verified about the dossier.

When SPAM gets his derriere handed to him, this is the kind of crap he uses to distract. Perhaps SPAM should bring up this subject on his own blog: "Citizen Pampersteer." Bring your own Charmin.
 

Bart is full of partisan shit.

From the article, a GOP donor first paid the firm in question to look into Trump. The firm didn't first look into Russian ties, but "but quickly realized that those relationships were extensive." The person they hired "was respected by the FBI and the State Department for earlier work he performed on a global corruption probe" and that alone could explain why the federal government took his findings seriously.

A candidate with extensive ties to Russia winning the Presidency doesn't bother Bart, what bothers him is looking into it. This is why Bart is a partisan rather than a patriot.
 

Bart has in the past complained of 'deep state' leaks. Yet he brings up this story, but not the story about how the Trump campaign went to Wikileaks to try to get Clinton's leaked emails. His outrage about leaks is, shall we say, shifting.
 

"It is simply impractical to with a heavy hand use that factor alone here."

And that's how you get an executive order that conspicuously doesn't bar entry by most of the world's Muslim population.

"A candidate with extensive ties to Russia winning the Presidency doesn't bother Bart"

Why should it? It wouldn't have bothered you if Hillary had won, and she was far more tangled up in Russia than Trump ever was, to the tune of millions of dollars.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

And that's how you get an executive order that conspicuously doesn't bar entry by most of the world's Muslim population.

The fact it doesn't go as far off the rails as Brett's analysis would appear to warrant is noted. Doesn't need to be to be invalid. Anyway, even if certain things are somewhat rational, they can cross constitutional lines. To toss out a platitude.
 

Brett

1. I didn't vote for Clinton.

2. We don't know if Trump's involvement with Russia is more extensive monetarily than Clinton's because, unlike Clinton, Trump won't release records of that (his tax records).

3. There's more to being in bed with Russia than just monetary issues. I mean, really, the idea that the campaign manager of the winning Presidential candidate is a foriegn agent of a power hostile to US interests doesn't bother you in the least? What kind patriot are you?


 

1. Good for you.

2. Trying to leverage this into seeing his tax records?

3. The name "Podesta" ring a bell? No, I'm going to assume you were just being ironic here.
 

Mr. W / Shag:

Trump’s GOP establishment opponents did indeed pay Fusion GPS to manufacture dirt on Trump. They did not control the national surveillance state at the time. The use of the former to abuse the latter is the question begged by the article.

The difference between the Team Clinton/DNC Wikileaked emails and the Fusion GPS allegations against Trump is the former existed and the latter was fiction.

The difference between the Russians paying the Clinton Foundation millions of dollars after SecState Clinton signed off on a Russian uranium deal and Trump doing business with various Russian businesses is the difference between corrupt pay to play and international business.
 

Back to the top ...

John Tyler. The man who last I checked still has at least one grandchild still alive.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2017-02-20/president-john-tyler-born-in-1790-still-has-2-living-grandsons


 

"Trying to leverage this into seeing his tax records?"

"The difference between the Russians paying the Clinton Foundation millions of dollars after SecState Clinton signed off on a Russian uranium deal and Trump doing business with various Russian businesses is the difference between corrupt pay to play and international business."

A difference that comes to mind is that while we know Trump has done 'business' with Russians we have no idea what's going on there, because unlike the Clinton Foundation, where the records are transparent, Trump hides his tax records and information on his Russian dealings.

"The name "Podesta" ring a bell?"

Manafort is a self declared Russian agent. Is Podesta?
 

The Podestal ringing the bell is Tony Pedestal whose firm was working for Manafort when the latter represented Russian favored Ukraine interests, not younger brother John, who had no connection with with Tony's firm. Tony was questioned by special counsel Mueller in an expansion of the Russia probe. There's no meat in that Brett/SPAM sandwich, just their usual "baloney."
 

Mr. W:

The Clinton Foundation is transparent? Try getting a breakdown of how the organization spends its money on “administrative costs” like paying friends and family as well as the lavish travel and dining spending for the Clintons and their entourage. Do you think it is a coincidence donations to the Clinton Pay to Play Foundation plunged after Clinton lost the election and no longer had any access to sell?

As for Trump, he had no access to sell in his dealings with Russian businesses.
 

Does SPAM gave inside info regarding Trump's dealings with Russian businesses? Putin recognized the political aspects of the Trump Brand, helpful in Putin's goal of having an impact on the 2016 election. Recall sons David, Jr. and Eric bragging about not needing banks what with investments by Russians in Trump properties. Trump admired Putin, with the latter partially reciprocating, two authoritarians. And of course Trump by claiming Obama was not a natural born citizen and thus not qualified under the Constitution,helped fuel Putin's campaign to influence/undermine US elections even before 2016. Who can forget that SPAM in trolling for the beached Cruz Canadacy repeatedly referred to Trump as a fascist. Maybe SPAM doesn't look upon Putin as a fascist, speaking of Lord Bacon's power corruption sandwich.
 

Shag:

So you are saying, over the past decade, Russian businesses foresaw Trump running and winning election as POTUS and somehow paid him off for future access?

Really?

Trump is the one paying off politicians like Clinton to do business, not the reverse.
 

Ooops... I forgot CNN already reported on mutliple occasions Comey used the Clinton purchased “Russia dossier” as part of their applications for FISC warrants to spy on multiple members of Team Trump.


 

Perhaps in SPAM's rural liddle mountaintop community in the Mile High State (of Mind), money laundering is paying a couple of bucks for a box or Boraxo. Recall the impact of the Bush/Cheney Great Recession of 2007/8 on the Trump Empire, resulting in difficulty getting bank financing for the Trump Empire. Magically Russian oligarchs purchased properties from the Trump Empire at prices reported to be above FMV. Recall Trump trips to Russia looking for business deals. There's so much more, not to mention General Flynn. Let the investigations follow the money. Even a neophyte former prosecutor like you might be aware of where the money can lead. Recall Watergate. Perhaps Trump's tax returns would provide relevant information.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], recall what info those FISC warrants obtained about General Flynn that got him ousted, eventually, as Trump's National Security Advisor. And consider the Russia action the Trump Administration had planned to take quickly following the inauguration to lessen certain burdens on Russia but was sidetracked by reports about Flynn and other Administration officials who had had contact with Russian officials.

And Trump did have plans to challenge Obama in 2012. Follow Trump's words about Obama and his efforts to woo Putin for deals in Russia. Was Trump ripe for the picking?

Further by the Bybee [expletives deleted], the FISC warrants were not"to spy on multiple members of Team Trump" unless Team Trump had foreign members who were Russian officials.

SPAM seems to continue with his short term memory problem pinning the "fascist" label on Trump to help the sinking Cruz Canadacy.