Tag: posts

This 87-Year-Old Republican’s Bill Would Restore the Second Amendment Rights of Cannabis Consumers in States That Have Legalized Marijuana


Don-Young-3-7-19-Newscom

Nearly 50 million Americans use marijuana each year, according to the latest federal survey data, and the actual number may be more like 70 million once underreporting is taken into account. Under federal law, all of those people are forbidden to purchase or possess firearms, even if they live in states that have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use.

A bill recently introduced by Rep. Don Young (R–Alaska) and cosponsored by two other Republicans would restore the Second Amendment rights of cannabis consumers by creating an exception for state-legal marijuana use. “When I was sworn into Congress, I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States,” Young says in a press release. “That oath does not mean picking and choosing which Amendments to defend; it requires us as Members of Congress to protect the ENTIRE Bill of Rights.” He argues that his bill, the Gun Rights and Marijuana (GRAM) Act, would vindicate both the Second Amendment and the 10th Amendment, which lets states “determine their own cannabis laws, as Alaska did in 2014,” when voters approved a legalization initiative.

Federal law prohibits gun possession by any “unlawful user” of a controlled substance, including marijuana. When you buy a firearm from a federally licensed dealer, you have to fill out a form that asks, “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” The question includes a warning that “the use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.”

Cannabis consumers who own guns are committing a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. They are guilty of another felony, punishable by up to five years in prison, if they lie about their marijuana use while buying a gun from a federally licensed dealer.

The GRAM Act specifies that “the term ‘unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance’ shall not include a person by reason of unlawful use or addiction to marihuana.” It is limited to conduct permitted by state or tribal law, so it does not apply to recreational users in most states or to medical users in the minority of states that do not recognize cannabis as a medicine.

“Gun ownership is a significant part of Alaska’s culture and lifestyle,” Young says. “When my constituents chose to legalize adult-use marijuana, they were not surrendering their Second Amendment rights. At a time when more individuals have been purchasing firearms for self-defense, sportsmanship, hunting, and countless other reasons, we have experienced a surge in state-level cannabis reforms. While we make progress in some areas, it is vital that we do not roll back progress in others….The federal government has no business unduly restricting responsible citizens from exercising their rights or restricting states from listening to their constituents and reforming marijuana laws. The GRAM Act bridges this gap. Given that it deals with both gun and marijuana rights, there really is something for those on both sides of the aisle to support.”

Young, who is 87 and has represented Alaska in the House since 1973, is co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus and a National Rifle Association board member. The original cosponsors of the GRAM Act are Rep. Rodney Davis (R–Ill.), whose state legalized recreational use in 2019, and Rep. Brian Mast (R–Fla.), whose state legalized medical use in 2016.

In theory, as Young suggests, the bill should be attractive both to Democrats who support marijuana legalization and to Republicans who support federalism and the Second Amendment. In practice, however, the gun angle may turn off Democrats, while the pot angle may repel Republicans. Since the GRAM Act is a good test of legislators’ commitment to defending the Constitution, its prospects do not seem bright.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3aNFzBz
via IFTTT

This 87-Year-Old Republican’s Bill Would Restore the Second Amendment Rights of Cannabis Consumers in States That Have Legalized Marijuana


Don-Young-3-7-19-Newscom

Nearly 50 million Americans use marijuana each year, according to the latest federal survey data, and the actual number may be more like 70 million once underreporting is taken into account. Under federal law, all of those people are forbidden to purchase or possess firearms, even if they live in states that have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use.

A bill recently introduced by Rep. Don Young (R–Alaska) and cosponsored by two other Republicans would restore the Second Amendment rights of cannabis consumers by creating an exception for state-legal marijuana use. “When I was sworn into Congress, I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States,” Young says in a press release. “That oath does not mean picking and choosing which Amendments to defend; it requires us as Members of Congress to protect the ENTIRE Bill of Rights.” He argues that his bill, the Gun Rights and Marijuana (GRAM) Act, would vindicate both the Second Amendment and the 10th Amendment, which lets states “determine their own cannabis laws, as Alaska did in 2014,” when voters approved a legalization initiative.

Federal law prohibits gun possession by any “unlawful user” of a controlled substance, including marijuana. When you buy a firearm from a federally licensed dealer, you have to fill out a form that asks, “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” The question includes a warning that “the use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.”

Cannabis consumers who own guns are committing a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. They are guilty of another felony, punishable by up to five years in prison, if they lie about their marijuana use while buying a gun from a federally licensed dealer.

The GRAM Act specifies that “the term ‘unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance’ shall not include a person by reason of unlawful use or addiction to marihuana.” It is limited to conduct permitted by state or tribal law, so it does not apply to recreational users in most states or to medical users in the minority of states that do not recognize cannabis as a medicine.

“Gun ownership is a significant part of Alaska’s culture and lifestyle,” Young says. “When my constituents chose to legalize adult-use marijuana, they were not surrendering their Second Amendment rights. At a time when more individuals have been purchasing firearms for self-defense, sportsmanship, hunting, and countless other reasons, we have experienced a surge in state-level cannabis reforms. While we make progress in some areas, it is vital that we do not roll back progress in others….The federal government has no business unduly restricting responsible citizens from exercising their rights or restricting states from listening to their constituents and reforming marijuana laws. The GRAM Act bridges this gap. Given that it deals with both gun and marijuana rights, there really is something for those on both sides of the aisle to support.”

Young, who is 87 and has represented Alaska in the House since 1973, is co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus and a National Rifle Association board member. The original cosponsors of the GRAM Act are Rep. Rodney Davis (R–Ill.), whose state legalized recreational use in 2019, and Rep. Brian Mast (R–Fla.), whose state legalized medical use in 2016.

In theory, as Young suggests, the bill should be attractive both to Democrats who support marijuana legalization and to Republicans who support federalism and the Second Amendment. In practice, however, the gun angle may turn off Democrats, while the pot angle may repel Republicans. Since the GRAM Act is a good test of legislators’ commitment to defending the Constitution, its prospects do not seem bright.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3aNFzBz
via IFTTT

Beware of Big Presidential Speeches During Times of Crisis


Ford2

‘Tis the season for pompous presidential speeches to Congress. Most years we call these prime-time pitches the State of the Union address, though beginning in earnest with Ronald Reagan in 1981, first-term presidents have stepped in where lame-duck executives once stood and delivered something of a less official yet still aspirational pep talk to a Joint Session of Congress. Such we will experience tonight.

In most years this annual exercise in presidential self-importance—which in less imperious times (1801–1912) was delivered in letter form—is an occasion to study bad speech writing, insincere promise making, and palpable crisis-envy, as the man in the Oval Office wishes out loud that the nation was panicked enough to confuse his domestic agenda with yet another “moonshot.”

But sometimes, as in 2021, the national trauma is real. First-term presidents in the wake of widespread calamity tend to go very big in their early-season congressional asks, and they tend to get much of what they want, changing the trajectory of American history.

Lyndon Johnson, in his celebrated 1964 SOTU after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, declared a “war on poverty,” and helped push through the Civil Rights Act. Gerald Ford, post-Watergate and amid the oil shocks of 1975, laid the groundwork for Washington’s star-crossed 1970s interventions into the energy sector. Reagan in 1981 outlined an entire course correction on economic policy, much of which would be enacted during his first term despite a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives. And Barack Obama in 2009, with now–President Joe Biden looking on behind him, bragged about his just-passed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and rhetorically paved the way for what would eventually be known as Obamacare.

So more than usual, Americans should take seriously the words passing the president’s lips tonight, as they have a much higher chance of being translated into policy. Biden in his first 99 days has already sent a staggering amount of money out the door, with hopes of doubling and tripling down. The sheer size of spending, deficits, and debts are placing the country in unchartered territory, but the president also has terraforming ambitions on everything from infrastructure to labor relations to racial “equity.”

We can learn a lot, or at least laugh a little, when looking back through history at comparable presidential speeches, and the policies they helped unleash. So in chronological order, here are bite-sized analyses of the four addresses delivered under circumstances that most resemble Biden’s.

—

LYNDON JOHNSON, 1964

Days in office: 50

Recent national trauma: The November 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy, plus the continuous civil rights protests, clashes, and murders during the previous calendar year.

Elegy: “In these last seven sorrowful weeks, we have learned anew that nothing is so enduring as faith, and nothing is so degrading as hate. John Kennedy was a victim of hate, but he was also a great builder of faith.”

Moonshot: There were two. 1) “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America….Our aim is not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it.” 2) “As far as the writ of federal law will run, we must abolish not some, but all racial discrimination.”

Congressional control: Democrats 66-34 in the Senate, 253-177 in the House.

Scorecard: Governmental discrimination at the federal, state, and local level was indeed curtailed by the Civil Rights Act, though its Title VII became the backdoor through which positive discrimination was driven through. Poverty, on the other hand, was not at all cured.

Them old mountains sure look like molehills!: The budget, LBJ promised, “will cut our deficit in half—from $10 billion to $4,900 million.” Granted, $10 billion in 1964 was worth around $85 billion in 2020 dollars. But $85 billion in the first six months of Fiscal 2021 amounted to…just around nine days’ worth of deficit.

Libertarian policy porn: “[My agenda] can be done without any increase in spending. In fact, under the budget that I shall shortly submit, it can be done with an actual reduction in federal expenditures and federal employment…. It will be, in proportion to our national output, the smallest budget since 1951.” Federal spending during Johnson’s presidency, needless to say, was not reduced.

Bitter irony: “For our ultimate goal is a world without war.” Seven months later came the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

Did NOT see that coming: “This administration must and will preserve the present gold value of the dollar.”

—

GERALD FORD, 1975

Days in office: 153

Recent national trauma: Watergate (which did not get mentioned), plus ongoing oil shocks.

Elegy: “I must say to you that the state of the union is not good.”

Moonshot: “I am proposing a program which will begin to restore our country’s surplus capacity in total energy. In this way, we will be able to assure ourselves reliable and adequate energy and help foster a new world energy stability for other major consuming nations….We must end vulnerability to economic disruption by foreign suppliers by 1985.”

Congressional control: Democrats 60-37 in the Senate, 291-144 in the House.

Scorecard: The United States did not achieve energy independence by 1985, and the late 1970s were filled with gas lines and more oil shocks.

Them old mountains sure look like molehills!: “This year’s federal deficit will be about $30 billion; next year’s probably $45 billion. The national debt will rise to over $500 billion.” With inflation, those number translate to $145 billion, $220 billion, and $2.45 trillion, respectively. Meanwhile, the federal deficit alone in 2021 will likely be higher, adjusted for inflation, than the entire accumulated national debt as of 1975.

Libertarian policy porn: “Only a reduction in the growth of spending can keep federal borrowing down and reduce the damage to the private sector from high interest rates. Only a reduction in spending can make it possible for the Federal Reserve System to avoid an inflationary growth in the money supply and thus restore balance to our economy. A major reduction in the growth of federal spending can help dispel the uncertainty that so many feel about our economy and put us on the way to curing our economic ills.”

Bitter irony: “If our foreign policy is to be successful, we cannot rigidly restrict in legislation the ability of the president to act. The conduct of negotiations is ill-suited to such limitations. Legislative restrictions, intended for the best motives and purposes, can have the opposite result.” The deliberative 21st century rollback of presidential foreign policy restrictions by Ford administration veteran Dick Cheney helped midwife one of the single most disastrous decisions in the history of American foreign policy.

Did NOT see that coming: “Now, I want to speak very bluntly. I’ve got bad news, and I don’t expect much, if any, applause….My message today is not intended to address all of the complex needs of America.” Can we make this the opening paragraph of all SOTUs going forward?

—

RONALD REAGAN, 1981

Days in office: 30

Recent national trauma: The recently resolved Iranian hostage crisis, but mostly: “All of us are aware of the punishing inflation which has for the first time in 60 years held to double-digit figures for 2 years in a row. Interest rates have reached absurd levels of more than 20 percent and over 15 percent for those who would borrow to buy a home. All across this land one can see newly built homes standing vacant, unsold because of mortgage interest rates. Almost 8 million Americans are out of work.”

Elegy: “Can we, who man the ship of state, deny it is somewhat out of control?”

Moonshot: “I am proposing a comprehensive four-point program…This plan is aimed at reducing the growth in government spending and taxing, reforming and eliminating regulations which are unnecessary and unproductive or counterproductive, and encouraging a consistent monetary policy aimed at maintaining the value of the currency.”

Congressional control: Republicans 53-46 in the Senate, Democrats 243-191 in the House.

Scorecard: Well, Reagan’s first-term economic reforms are the subject of debate to this day. Taxes were cut, spending was not, the deregulation that was launched under Jimmy Carter continued for a while then petered out. But also, inflation was tamed, the economy boomed, and the mood of the nation was noticeably changed.

Them old mountains sure look like molehills!: “Our national debt is approaching $1 trillion. A few weeks ago I called such a figure—a trillion dollars—incomprehensible, and I’ve been trying ever since to think of a way to illustrate how big a trillion really is. And the best I could come up with is that if you had a stack of thousand-dollar bills in your hand only 4 inches high, you’d be a millionaire. A trillion dollars would be a stack of thousand-dollar bills 67 miles high.” Since the national debt now stands at upwards of $22 trillion, that means the subsequent stack of Grover Clevelands, placed on its side, would stretch from Boston to Miami.

Libertarian policy porn: Like many political speeches of the time (including by Democrats), there was a lot to choose from: “The taxing power of government must be used to provide revenues for legitimate government purposes. It must not be used to regulate the economy or bring about social change. We’ve tried that, and surely we must be able to see it doesn’t work. Spending by government must be limited to those functions which are the proper province of government. We can no longer afford things simply because we think of them.”

Bitter irony: “We’re asking that another major industry—business subsidy I should say, the Export-Import Bank loan authority, be reduced by one-third in 1982. We’re doing this because the primary beneficiaries of taxpayer funds in this case are the exporting companies themselves—most of them profitable corporations.” This is ironic mostly because we’ve always known this agency is corporatist garbage, yet never kill it.

Did NOT see that coming: The word communism—Reagan’s longtime bête noire, was not uttered once. The Soviet Union merited two meager paragraphs.

—

BARACK OBAMA 2009

Days in office: 36

Recent national trauma: The financial crisis of 2008

Elegy: “Now, if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that for too long, we have not always met these responsibilities as a government or as a people….The fact is, our economy did not fall into decline overnight, nor did all of our problems begin when the housing market collapsed or the stock market sank.”

Moonshot: “We must have quality, affordable health care for every American. It’s a commitment that’s paid for in part by efficiencies in our system that are long overdue. And it’s a step we must take if we hope to bring down our deficit in the years to come….Nearly a century after Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform, the cost of our health care has weighed down our economy and our conscience long enough. So let there be no doubt: Health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year.”

Congressional control: Democrats 56-41 in the Senate, 254-178 in the House.

Scorecard: The gap between the Affordable Care Act’s promises and results was wide enough that every Democrat running for president in 2020 ran on drastically overhauling it.

Them old mountains sure look like molehills!: “Yesterday I held a fiscal summit where I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office. My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs. As you can imagine, this is a process that will take some time. But we have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade.” Even adjusted for inflation, those annualized savings of $250 billion (which may have been identified, but were never realized), would at this point cut the 2021 deficit by less than one-tenth.

Libertarian policy porn: “We will end education programs that don’t work and end direct payments to large agribusiness that don’t need them. We’ll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq and reform our defense budget so that we’re not paying for Cold War–era weapons systems we don’t use. We will root out the waste and fraud and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn’t make our seniors any healthier.” I’m sure it was pretty to think so!

Bitter irony: “To overcome extremism, we must also be vigilant in upholding the values our troops defend, because there is no force in the world more powerful than the example of America. And that is why I have ordered the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay.”

Did NOT see that coming: “And to respond to an economic crisis that is global in scope, we are working with the nations of the G-20 to restore confidence in our financial system, avoid the possibility of escalating protectionism, and spur demand for American goods in markets across the globe.” Remember when U.S. presidents warned against trade protectionism?

—

Biden’s speech tonight is almost certainly not to register much of a blip in the history of political rhetoric. But it could mark a further milestone in the history of ever-expanding federal government. Buyer beware.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3gM5v4k
via IFTTT

Beware of Big Presidential Speeches During Times of Crisis


Ford2

‘Tis the season for pompous presidential speeches to Congress. Most years we call these prime-time pitches the State of the Union address, though beginning in earnest with Ronald Reagan in 1981, first-term presidents have stepped in where lame-duck executives once stood and delivered something of a less official yet still aspirational pep talk to a Joint Session of Congress. Such we will experience tonight.

In most years this annual exercise in presidential self-importance—which in less imperious times (1801–1912) was delivered in letter form—is an occasion to study bad speech writing, insincere promise making, and palpable crisis-envy, as the man in the Oval Office wishes out loud that the nation was panicked enough to confuse his domestic agenda with yet another “moonshot.”

But sometimes, as in 2021, the national trauma is real. First-term presidents in the wake of widespread calamity tend to go very big in their early-season congressional asks, and they tend to get much of what they want, changing the trajectory of American history.

Lyndon Johnson, in his celebrated 1964 SOTU after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, declared a “war on poverty,” and helped push through the Civil Rights Act. Gerald Ford, post-Watergate and amid the oil shocks of 1975, laid the groundwork for Washington’s star-crossed 1970s interventions into the energy sector. Reagan in 1981 outlined an entire course correction on economic policy, much of which would be enacted during his first term despite a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives. And Barack Obama in 2009, with now–President Joe Biden looking on behind him, bragged about his just-passed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and rhetorically paved the way for what would eventually be known as Obamacare.

So more than usual, Americans should take seriously the words passing the president’s lips tonight, as they have a much higher chance of being translated into policy. Biden in his first 99 days has already sent a staggering amount of money out the door, with hopes of doubling and tripling down. The sheer size of spending, deficits, and debts are placing the country in unchartered territory, but the president also has terraforming ambitions on everything from infrastructure to labor relations to racial “equity.”

We can learn a lot, or at least laugh a little, when looking back through history at comparable presidential speeches, and the policies they helped unleash. So in chronological order, here are bite-sized analyses of the four addresses delivered under circumstances that most resemble Biden’s.

—

LYNDON JOHNSON, 1964

Days in office: 50

Recent national trauma: The November 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy, plus the continuous civil rights protests, clashes, and murders during the previous calendar year.

Elegy: “In these last seven sorrowful weeks, we have learned anew that nothing is so enduring as faith, and nothing is so degrading as hate. John Kennedy was a victim of hate, but he was also a great builder of faith.”

Moonshot: There were two. 1) “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America….Our aim is not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it.” 2) “As far as the writ of federal law will run, we must abolish not some, but all racial discrimination.”

Congressional control: Democrats 66-34 in the Senate, 253-177 in the House.

Scorecard: Governmental discrimination at the federal, state, and local level was indeed curtailed by the Civil Rights Act, though its Title VII became the backdoor through which positive discrimination was driven through. Poverty, on the other hand, was not at all cured.

Them old mountains sure look like molehills!: The budget, LBJ promised, “will cut our deficit in half—from $10 billion to $4,900 million.” Granted, $10 billion in 1964 was worth around $85 billion in 2020 dollars. But $85 billion in the first six months of Fiscal 2021 amounted to…just around nine days’ worth of deficit.

Libertarian policy porn: “[My agenda] can be done without any increase in spending. In fact, under the budget that I shall shortly submit, it can be done with an actual reduction in federal expenditures and federal employment…. It will be, in proportion to our national output, the smallest budget since 1951.” Federal spending during Johnson’s presidency, needless to say, was not reduced.

Bitter irony: “For our ultimate goal is a world without war.” Seven months later came the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

Did NOT see that coming: “This administration must and will preserve the present gold value of the dollar.”

—

GERALD FORD, 1975

Days in office: 153

Recent national trauma: Watergate (which did not get mentioned), plus ongoing oil shocks.

Elegy: “I must say to you that the state of the union is not good.”

Moonshot: “I am proposing a program which will begin to restore our country’s surplus capacity in total energy. In this way, we will be able to assure ourselves reliable and adequate energy and help foster a new world energy stability for other major consuming nations….We must end vulnerability to economic disruption by foreign suppliers by 1985.”

Congressional control: Democrats 60-37 in the Senate, 291-144 in the House.

Scorecard: The United States did not achieve energy independence by 1985, and the late 1970s were filled with gas lines and more oil shocks.

Them old mountains sure look like molehills!: “This year’s federal deficit will be about $30 billion; next year’s probably $45 billion. The national debt will rise to over $500 billion.” With inflation, those number translate to $145 billion, $220 billion, and $2.45 trillion, respectively. Meanwhile, the federal deficit alone in 2021 will likely be higher, adjusted for inflation, than the entire accumulated national debt as of 1975.

Libertarian policy porn: “Only a reduction in the growth of spending can keep federal borrowing down and reduce the damage to the private sector from high interest rates. Only a reduction in spending can make it possible for the Federal Reserve System to avoid an inflationary growth in the money supply and thus restore balance to our economy. A major reduction in the growth of federal spending can help dispel the uncertainty that so many feel about our economy and put us on the way to curing our economic ills.”

Bitter irony: “If our foreign policy is to be successful, we cannot rigidly restrict in legislation the ability of the president to act. The conduct of negotiations is ill-suited to such limitations. Legislative restrictions, intended for the best motives and purposes, can have the opposite result.” The deliberative 21st century rollback of presidential foreign policy restrictions by Ford administration veteran Dick Cheney helped midwife one of the single most disastrous decisions in the history of American foreign policy.

Did NOT see that coming: “Now, I want to speak very bluntly. I’ve got bad news, and I don’t expect much, if any, applause….My message today is not intended to address all of the complex needs of America.” Can we make this the opening paragraph of all SOTUs going forward?

—

RONALD REAGAN, 1981

Days in office: 30

Recent national trauma: The recently resolved Iranian hostage crisis, but mostly: “All of us are aware of the punishing inflation which has for the first time in 60 years held to double-digit figures for 2 years in a row. Interest rates have reached absurd levels of more than 20 percent and over 15 percent for those who would borrow to buy a home. All across this land one can see newly built homes standing vacant, unsold because of mortgage interest rates. Almost 8 million Americans are out of work.”

Elegy: “Can we, who man the ship of state, deny it is somewhat out of control?”

Moonshot: “I am proposing a comprehensive four-point program…This plan is aimed at reducing the growth in government spending and taxing, reforming and eliminating regulations which are unnecessary and unproductive or counterproductive, and encouraging a consistent monetary policy aimed at maintaining the value of the currency.”

Congressional control: Republicans 53-46 in the Senate, Democrats 243-191 in the House.

Scorecard: Well, Reagan’s first-term economic reforms are the subject of debate to this day. Taxes were cut, spending was not, the deregulation that was launched under Jimmy Carter continued for a while then petered out. But also, inflation was tamed, the economy boomed, and the mood of the nation was noticeably changed.

Them old mountains sure look like molehills!: “Our national debt is approaching $1 trillion. A few weeks ago I called such a figure—a trillion dollars—incomprehensible, and I’ve been trying ever since to think of a way to illustrate how big a trillion really is. And the best I could come up with is that if you had a stack of thousand-dollar bills in your hand only 4 inches high, you’d be a millionaire. A trillion dollars would be a stack of thousand-dollar bills 67 miles high.” Since the national debt now stands at upwards of $22 trillion, that means the subsequent stack of Grover Clevelands, placed on its side, would stretch from Boston to Miami.

Libertarian policy porn: Like many political speeches of the time (including by Democrats), there was a lot to choose from: “The taxing power of government must be used to provide revenues for legitimate government purposes. It must not be used to regulate the economy or bring about social change. We’ve tried that, and surely we must be able to see it doesn’t work. Spending by government must be limited to those functions which are the proper province of government. We can no longer afford things simply because we think of them.”

Bitter irony: “We’re asking that another major industry—business subsidy I should say, the Export-Import Bank loan authority, be reduced by one-third in 1982. We’re doing this because the primary beneficiaries of taxpayer funds in this case are the exporting companies themselves—most of them profitable corporations.” This is ironic mostly because we’ve always known this agency is corporatist garbage, yet never kill it.

Did NOT see that coming: The word communism—Reagan’s longtime bête noire, was not uttered once. The Soviet Union merited two meager paragraphs.

—

BARACK OBAMA 2009

Days in office: 36

Recent national trauma: The financial crisis of 2008

Elegy: “Now, if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that for too long, we have not always met these responsibilities as a government or as a people….The fact is, our economy did not fall into decline overnight, nor did all of our problems begin when the housing market collapsed or the stock market sank.”

Moonshot: “We must have quality, affordable health care for every American. It’s a commitment that’s paid for in part by efficiencies in our system that are long overdue. And it’s a step we must take if we hope to bring down our deficit in the years to come….Nearly a century after Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform, the cost of our health care has weighed down our economy and our conscience long enough. So let there be no doubt: Health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year.”

Congressional control: Democrats 56-41 in the Senate, 254-178 in the House.

Scorecard: The gap between the Affordable Care Act’s promises and results was wide enough that every Democrat running for president in 2020 ran on drastically overhauling it.

Them old mountains sure look like molehills!: “Yesterday I held a fiscal summit where I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office. My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs. As you can imagine, this is a process that will take some time. But we have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade.” Even adjusted for inflation, those annualized savings of $250 billion (which may have been identified, but were never realized), would at this point cut the 2021 deficit by less than one-tenth.

Libertarian policy porn: “We will end education programs that don’t work and end direct payments to large agribusiness that don’t need them. We’ll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq and reform our defense budget so that we’re not paying for Cold War–era weapons systems we don’t use. We will root out the waste and fraud and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn’t make our seniors any healthier.” I’m sure it was pretty to think so!

Bitter irony: “To overcome extremism, we must also be vigilant in upholding the values our troops defend, because there is no force in the world more powerful than the example of America. And that is why I have ordered the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay.”

Did NOT see that coming: “And to respond to an economic crisis that is global in scope, we are working with the nations of the G-20 to restore confidence in our financial system, avoid the possibility of escalating protectionism, and spur demand for American goods in markets across the globe.” Remember when U.S. presidents warned against trade protectionism?

—

Biden’s speech tonight is almost certainly not to register much of a blip in the history of political rhetoric. But it could mark a further milestone in the history of ever-expanding federal government. Buyer beware.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3gM5v4k
via IFTTT

Basecamp Becomes the Latest Tech Company To Ban Talking Politics at Work


ehimetalor-akhere-unuabona-HnWt27rJG7c-unsplash

On Monday, productivity software company Basecamp announced a ban on talking politics at work and the discontinuation of “paternalistic benefits” like fitness-related stipends, farmer’s market shares, and allowances for education. “Sensitivities are at 11, and every discussion remotely related to politics, advocacy, or society at large quickly spins away from pleasant. You shouldn’t have to wonder if staying out of it means you’re complicit, or wading into it means you’re a target,” co-founder Jason Fried wrote in a post announcing the changes. At work, political discussions have become “a major distraction,” and, somewhat relatedly, “by providing funds for certain things, we’re getting too deep into nudging people’s personal, individual choices.”

“We make project management, team communication, and email software. We are not a social impact company,” Fried said. “We don’t have to solve deep social problems, chime in publicly whenever the world requests our opinion on the major issues of the day, or get behind one movement or another with time or treasure. These are all important topics, but…they’re not what we collectively do here.”

“No comment thread on Basecamp is going to close the gap on fundamental philosophical and political differences,” wrote co-founder David Heinemeier Hansson, widely known as DHH, in a companion post.

As Casey Newton reports at Platformer, the founders neglected to mention the impetus for the new companywide policy in their public statements. The trouble allegedly started circa 2009, when customer service reps at Basecamp began keeping a list of funny-sounding names, some of which were American or European in origin, others of which were names of minorities. And in December, a newer employee sought to create a Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Committee, recruiting 20 volunteers—a third of the company’s lean workforce.

Earlier this month, “two employees posted an apology on the internal Basecamp for having contributed to the list in the past” which “included an image of ‘the pyramid of hate,’ an illustration created by the Anti-Defamation League to show how the most extreme acts of extremist violence are enabled by a foundation of biased attitudes and acts of bias.” The pyramid places “biased attitudes” like stereotyping and non-inclusive language at the bottom, with “acts of bias,” “discrimination,” “bias motivated violence,” and “genocide” in ascending order. DHH’s internal response to this included a condemnation of the mean-spirited list, but also an objection to the use of the pyramid. “He told me today that attempting to link the list of customer names to potential genocide represented a case of ‘catastrophizing’—one that made it impossible for any good-faith discussions to follow,” Newton wrote. This seems eminently reasonable; an attempt to take a shitty list, made years ago by an employee who is no longer with the company, and depict it as potentially the first rung in a person’s conversion to carrying out violent, genocidal acts, is an enormous stretch.

If this ruckus sound familiar, it may be because Brian Armstrong of the cryptocurrency exchange platform Coinbase issued a similar statement last September, saying his company would no longer tolerate people engaging at work with political issues “unrelated to our core mission, because we believe impact only comes with focus.”

“We could use our work day debating what to do about various unrelated challenges in the world, but that would not be in service of the company or our own interests as employees and shareholders,” wrote Armstrong, who asked that employees who don’t share this mission of advancing global economic freedom resign, offering them four to six months of severance. Ultimately, 5 percent of the workforce—about 60 people—chose to take this exit ramp. Shortly thereafter, The New York Times published a piece alleging that discrimination against black employees had led to this “exodus.” Coinbase reps disputed the Times‘ characterization, saying that the company had a record of only three formal complaints over the time period in question and that all were found to be unsubstantiated.

In any case, a company can have good reasons to recuse itself from such statements. When parroting social justice–infused jargon via internal statements to employees and outwardly facing corporate accounts—”there’s still more work to be done,” after all—becomes commonplace, a recusal may look like you’re saying that the grave injustices that plague society are fine and not worth fixing. But a recusal ought to seen as an admission that a particular company isn’t qualified to offer solutions for a problem of bad policy or distorted incentives; or an admission that the people who chose to work for said company did not consent to advancing a particular slate of political priorities; or maybe simply an statement that a particular company has chosen to do something else with its time, because that’s its damn prerogative. Just as companies are well within their rights to wokify themselves, they should also be free to opt out, and employees who have disdain for that choice have a right to seek employment elsewhere—maybe with the help of a few months of severance, courtesy of Armstrong.

“Basecamp pulls a Coinbase and decides to exclude marginalized people by prohibiting ‘political’ discussions at work, despite our lives and existence being inherently political,” tweeted Liz Fong-Jones, principal developer advocate at Honeycomb. But there wasn’t any indication that marginalized people will be excluded from companies like these, and there’s no reason to expect a racial or sexual minority to be less capable of the situational awareness needed to understand when to talk politics versus when a conversation ought to serve more relevant work-related ends.

Critics have raised objections that people for whom politics is central to their identity may be stifled—a queer person might not be able to speak about their spouse at work; a parent might not be able to talk about public schools; a transgender person might not be able to get their colleagues to call them by their desired pronouns. And what about issues with pay, time off, or workplace sexual misconduct? But all of these feel like deliberate stretches, and the Basecamp heads have clarified that this policy will not be applied with disregard to labor-related issues. There’s an enormous difference between engaging in good etiquette (calling people by the pronouns they prefer, using the proper term for their spouse, etc.) and engaging in work-unrelated political discourse. Adults can generally tell the difference, and the message seems clear and simple: Focus mostly on work when you’re at work, please and thank you.

When tech leaders announce an aspiration to disentangle work from politics, they’re acknowledging that homogeneity of political beliefs within a workplace is a myth. There will often be employees who disagree with a company’s political statements. Such workers are often kowtowed into silence, knowing they’ll face unforeseen costs for stirring the pot, or pushed into stewing in their own resentment if they feel there’s no way to speak up. That type of resentment can push even well-meaning people with principled objections into bitterness. When your company that sells email tracking software suddenly has a party line on things like reparations and the Green New Deal, it’s perfectly reasonable for the leaders to reconsider, back off, and say Nope, that’s not what we’re qualified to speak on, that’s not why we’re here.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/339jBVH
via IFTTT

Basecamp Becomes the Latest Tech Company To Ban Talking Politics at Work


ehimetalor-akhere-unuabona-HnWt27rJG7c-unsplash

On Monday, productivity software company Basecamp announced a ban on talking politics at work and the discontinuation of “paternalistic benefits” like fitness-related stipends, farmer’s market shares, and allowances for education. “Sensitivities are at 11, and every discussion remotely related to politics, advocacy, or society at large quickly spins away from pleasant. You shouldn’t have to wonder if staying out of it means you’re complicit, or wading into it means you’re a target,” co-founder Jason Fried wrote in a post announcing the changes. At work, political discussions have become “a major distraction,” and, somewhat relatedly, “by providing funds for certain things, we’re getting too deep into nudging people’s personal, individual choices.”

“We make project management, team communication, and email software. We are not a social impact company,” Fried said. “We don’t have to solve deep social problems, chime in publicly whenever the world requests our opinion on the major issues of the day, or get behind one movement or another with time or treasure. These are all important topics, but…they’re not what we collectively do here.”

“No comment thread on Basecamp is going to close the gap on fundamental philosophical and political differences,” wrote co-founder David Heinemeier Hansson, widely known as DHH, in a companion post.

As Casey Newton reports at Platformer, the founders neglected to mention the impetus for the new companywide policy in their public statements. The trouble allegedly started circa 2009, when customer service reps at Basecamp began keeping a list of funny-sounding names, some of which were American or European in origin, others of which were names of minorities. And in December, a newer employee sought to create a Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Committee, recruiting 20 volunteers—a third of the company’s lean workforce.

Earlier this month, “two employees posted an apology on the internal Basecamp for having contributed to the list in the past” which “included an image of ‘the pyramid of hate,’ an illustration created by the Anti-Defamation League to show how the most extreme acts of extremist violence are enabled by a foundation of biased attitudes and acts of bias.” The pyramid places “biased attitudes” like stereotyping and non-inclusive language at the bottom, with “acts of bias,” “discrimination,” “bias motivated violence,” and “genocide” in ascending order. DHH’s internal response to this included a condemnation of the mean-spirited list, but also an objection to the use of the pyramid. “He told me today that attempting to link the list of customer names to potential genocide represented a case of ‘catastrophizing’—one that made it impossible for any good-faith discussions to follow,” Newton wrote. This seems eminently reasonable; an attempt to take a shitty list, made years ago by an employee who is no longer with the company, and depict it as potentially the first rung in a person’s conversion to carrying out violent, genocidal acts, is an enormous stretch.

If this ruckus sound familiar, it may be because Brian Armstrong of the cryptocurrency exchange platform Coinbase issued a similar statement last September, saying his company would no longer tolerate people engaging at work with political issues “unrelated to our core mission, because we believe impact only comes with focus.”

“We could use our work day debating what to do about various unrelated challenges in the world, but that would not be in service of the company or our own interests as employees and shareholders,” wrote Armstrong, who asked that employees who don’t share this mission of advancing global economic freedom resign, offering them four to six months of severance. Ultimately, 5 percent of the workforce—about 60 people—chose to take this exit ramp. Shortly thereafter, The New York Times published a piece alleging that discrimination against black employees had led to this “exodus.” Coinbase reps disputed the Times‘ characterization, saying that the company had a record of only three formal complaints over the time period in question and that all were found to be unsubstantiated.

In any case, a company can have good reasons to recuse itself from such statements. When parroting social justice–infused jargon via internal statements to employees and outwardly facing corporate accounts—”there’s still more work to be done,” after all—becomes commonplace, a recusal may look like you’re saying that the grave injustices that plague society are fine and not worth fixing. But a recusal ought to seen as an admission that a particular company isn’t qualified to offer solutions for a problem of bad policy or distorted incentives; or an admission that the people who chose to work for said company did not consent to advancing a particular slate of political priorities; or maybe simply an statement that a particular company has chosen to do something else with its time, because that’s its damn prerogative. Just as companies are well within their rights to wokify themselves, they should also be free to opt out, and employees who have disdain for that choice have a right to seek employment elsewhere—maybe with the help of a few months of severance, courtesy of Armstrong.

“Basecamp pulls a Coinbase and decides to exclude marginalized people by prohibiting ‘political’ discussions at work, despite our lives and existence being inherently political,” tweeted Liz Fong-Jones, principal developer advocate at Honeycomb. But there wasn’t any indication that marginalized people will be excluded from companies like these, and there’s no reason to expect a racial or sexual minority to be less capable of the situational awareness needed to understand when to talk politics versus when a conversation ought to serve more relevant work-related ends.

Critics have raised objections that people for whom politics is central to their identity may be stifled—a queer person might not be able to speak about their spouse at work; a parent might not be able to talk about public schools; a transgender person might not be able to get their colleagues to call them by their desired pronouns. And what about issues with pay, time off, or workplace sexual misconduct? But all of these feel like deliberate stretches, and the Basecamp heads have clarified that this policy will not be applied with disregard to labor-related issues. There’s an enormous difference between engaging in good etiquette (calling people by the pronouns they prefer, using the proper term for their spouse, etc.) and engaging in work-unrelated political discourse. Adults can generally tell the difference, and the message seems clear and simple: Focus mostly on work when you’re at work, please and thank you.

When tech leaders announce an aspiration to disentangle work from politics, they’re acknowledging that homogeneity of political beliefs within a workplace is a myth. There will often be employees who disagree with a company’s political statements. Such workers are often kowtowed into silence, knowing they’ll face unforeseen costs for stirring the pot, or pushed into stewing in their own resentment if they feel there’s no way to speak up. That type of resentment can push even well-meaning people with principled objections into bitterness. When your company that sells email tracking software suddenly has a party line on things like reparations and the Green New Deal, it’s perfectly reasonable for the leaders to reconsider, back off, and say Nope, that’s not what we’re qualified to speak on, that’s not why we’re here.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/339jBVH
via IFTTT

Biden Seeks $1.8 Trillion for Public Child Care, Preschool, College


covphotos128114

Biden spending spree continues. After consigning America to a $1.9 trillion tab for a Democratic policy wish list disguised as pandemic relief, and pushing for $2.25 trillion in “infrastructure” spending (under which anything Democrats like is defined as infrastructure), President Joe Biden is now seeking another $1.8 trillion for an “American Families Plan.”

The new spending will allegedly go toward health care, child care, and education—though if it’s anything like Biden’s previous spending proposals, some of the funds will go toward those things and some will go toward whatever the hell Democrats think will get them votes.

The plan will reportedly expand publicly funded schooling by four years—two years of government-funded preschool, and two years of government-funded community college—for anyone who wants it, regardless of family income. The plan is also expected to subsidize child care entirely for low-income families and partially for middle earners, expand child tax credits, expand the federal government’s investment in paid family leave, and set a $15 minimum wage for child care workers.

In addition, “the president also will propose more money for Pell Grants, and lowering tuition at some colleges, including historically Black colleges and universities,” and “make permanent the temporary tax credits for health insurance in Obamacare exchanges that were part of the American Rescue Plan,” Axios says.

As always, Biden’s plan to pay for it (and his infrastructure/American Jobs Plan)—which together come to a total of around $4 trillion—is to raise taxes on businesses and people earning above a certain income threshold. The proposal would “nearly double the capital gains tax from a 20% rate to 39.6% for households making more than $1 million,” USA Today reports.

Biden plans to pitch it to Congress today.

With this request, notes Axios, “Biden will have asked Congress for approximately $6 trillion in new spending, outside of his annual budget request” since taking office a little more than three months ago.

FREE MINDS

Cheerleader Snapchat case comes before Supreme Court today. The case explores the limits of schools’ ability to punish students for off-campus speech. From CBS News:

Marked by a string of obscenities beginning with the letter “F” and a raised middle finger, the post from Brandi Levy, the cheerleader at the center of the case, has paved the way for the high court to clarify the reach of school officials in policing the conduct of their students.

“The seminal importance of this case is the Supreme Court will determine how far the arm of school authority extends off campus,” David Hudson, a professor at Belmont Law who works on First Amendment issues, told CBS News. “That’s a vitally important question because right now, school officials, students, parents — really, anyone interested in this issue — really doesn’t know. The court needs to provide some guidance.”

FREE MARKETS

The American Civil Liberties Union opposes Biden’s proposed ban on menthol cigarettes:

QUICK HITS

• Republicans keep trying to pass abortion restrictions that have been ruled unconstitutional in other states. The latest is Idaho’s Fetal Heartbeat Preborn Child Protection Act, which would make abortion illegal as soon as fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which occurs a few weeks after conception.

• The Real ID deadline has been extended once again:

• Arizona bans abortions spurred by parents’ desire to avoid having a baby with genetic abnormalities, making it a felony crime for doctors to perform abortions for this reason. Such legislation has become popular among state Republicans despite lacking any meaningful impact since no one is required to state a reason for seeking an abortion.

• Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) is beyond parody:

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32V5HWP
via IFTTT

Biden Seeks $1.8 Trillion for Public Child Care, Preschool, College


covphotos128114

Biden spending spree continues. After consigning America to a $1.9 trillion tab for a Democratic policy wish list disguised as pandemic relief, and pushing for $2.25 trillion in “infrastructure” spending (under which anything Democrats like is defined as infrastructure), President Joe Biden is now seeking another $1.8 trillion for an “American Families Plan.”

The new spending will allegedly go toward health care, child care, and education—though if it’s anything like Biden’s previous spending proposals, some of the funds will go toward those things and some will go toward whatever the hell Democrats think will get them votes.

The plan will reportedly expand publicly funded schooling by four years—two years of government-funded preschool, and two years of government-funded community college—for anyone who wants it, regardless of family income. The plan is also expected to subsidize child care entirely for low-income families and partially for middle earners, expand child tax credits, expand the federal government’s investment in paid family leave, and set a $15 minimum wage for child care workers.

In addition, “the president also will propose more money for Pell Grants, and lowering tuition at some colleges, including historically Black colleges and universities,” and “make permanent the temporary tax credits for health insurance in Obamacare exchanges that were part of the American Rescue Plan,” Axios says.

As always, Biden’s plan to pay for it (and his infrastructure/American Jobs Plan)—which together come to a total of around $4 trillion—is to raise taxes on businesses and people earning above a certain income threshold. The proposal would “nearly double the capital gains tax from a 20% rate to 39.6% for households making more than $1 million,” USA Today reports.

Biden plans to pitch it to Congress today.

With this request, notes Axios, “Biden will have asked Congress for approximately $6 trillion in new spending, outside of his annual budget request” since taking office a little more than three months ago.

FREE MINDS

Cheerleader Snapchat case comes before Supreme Court today. The case explores the limits of schools’ ability to punish students for off-campus speech. From CBS News:

Marked by a string of obscenities beginning with the letter “F” and a raised middle finger, the post from Brandi Levy, the cheerleader at the center of the case, has paved the way for the high court to clarify the reach of school officials in policing the conduct of their students.

“The seminal importance of this case is the Supreme Court will determine how far the arm of school authority extends off campus,” David Hudson, a professor at Belmont Law who works on First Amendment issues, told CBS News. “That’s a vitally important question because right now, school officials, students, parents — really, anyone interested in this issue — really doesn’t know. The court needs to provide some guidance.”

FREE MARKETS

The American Civil Liberties Union opposes Biden’s proposed ban on menthol cigarettes:

QUICK HITS

• Republicans keep trying to pass abortion restrictions that have been ruled unconstitutional in other states. The latest is Idaho’s Fetal Heartbeat Preborn Child Protection Act, which would make abortion illegal as soon as fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which occurs a few weeks after conception.

• The Real ID deadline has been extended once again:

• Arizona bans abortions spurred by parents’ desire to avoid having a baby with genetic abnormalities, making it a felony crime for doctors to perform abortions for this reason. Such legislation has become popular among state Republicans despite lacking any meaningful impact since no one is required to state a reason for seeking an abortion.

• Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) is beyond parody:

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32V5HWP
via IFTTT

The Legal Profession and the Case for Fundamental Reform: Ideological Polarity and Packing the Supreme Court

Americans have historically held the judicial branch of government in highest regard because of its perceived aloofness from politics. Unfortunately, perceptions of the Supreme Court are changing. Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of Berkeley Law School characterized justices on recent courts as politicians in fine robes, who simply reflect the views of the president who appointed them. In the aftermath of the rushed confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, some Democrats raised the possibility that they might attempt to “pack the court” to redress the philosophical imbalance, and they have recently introduced legislation to expand the Supreme Court by four justices.

Trouble at the Bar assesses whether justices are behaving like politicians by contributing to the debate on whether they make ideologically based rulings. We then consider whether it is appropriate to restructure the Supreme Court.

Judge Richard Posner argues that, because justices do not share a commitment to a logical premise for making a decision (for example, cost-benefit analysis), they must be ideological because they cannot be anything else. Justices’ ideological instincts are derived from the fact that they have been trained and gained work experience as lawyers and judges in lower courts. This background reduces the effect of scientific influences, especially mathematics and statistics, to mitigate those instincts.

For example, when presented with basic statistical evidence of anomalies in the 2019 election of Georgia’s lieutenant governor, a Georgia Supreme Court justice said: “We are all lawyers. We are all judges. You are making us shudder with math.” Another added, “I am one of many people who went to law school because I was told there would be no math. Yet here it is.” It is hardly surprising that after advancing to his position as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts’ response to statistical evidence showing Wisconsin’s voting districts had been warped by political gerrymandering was to dismiss it as “sociological gobbledygook,” when, in fact, it was a conclusion based on basic mathematical methods.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia dismissed criticisms of being an ideologue by characterizing himself as an “originalist”—that is, he adhered to the original meaning of the text of the U.S. Constitution and statutes enacted by Congress, not the meaning as he wished it were. But Professor Cass Sunstein countered that when cases get to the Supreme Court, the original sources often leave gaps and ambiguities. If one examines the highlights of Scalia’s voting record, they simply fit with the ideologies of the Republican Party.

Recent research has addressed the issue empirically by estimating the effect of justices’ ideologies on their votes before the court. Lee Epstein, Landes, and Posner performed a statistical analysis of business cases and concluded that the conservatives on the Roberts court are extremely probusiness and that the liberals are only moderately liberal. Professor Richard Epstein challenged their finding on the grounds that the authors did not control for potential selectivity bias in the case petitions that the Roberts court accepts.

Trouble at the Bar takes up Richard Epstein’s challenge by estimating a joint model of justices’ votes on business cases and their selection of petitions and provides strong evidence that Epstein is correct that omitting case petitions does cause selectivity bias that affects the conclusions. However, the effect is to mute ideological preferences through the petition-selection process. When we control for case selection, we find that “liberal” justices have even stronger preferences to vote against businesses and “conservative” justices have even stronger preferences to vote in favor of businesses than Lee Epstein, Landes, and Posner find. Moreover, the Roberts court has become much more polarized along ideological voting lines than the court under former Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

It is difficult to quantify the causal implications of the Supreme Court’s growing ideological polarity on the nation’s economic and social welfare. However, it is hard to imagine that the effects are positive if over time administrations attempt to overturn important decisions made by previous administrations, with the court abandoning a more socially desirable middle ground that forges decisions not marked by ideological splits.

Clearly, the desirable response is not to pack the Supreme Court with a balancing number of ideological justices, but is there anything constructive that could be done? Consistent with Judge Posner’s view that judges should make more pragmatic, policy-based decisions, Trouble at the Bar suggests that justices should be receptive to forming and working with a panel of independent experts from appropriate academic disciplines to improve their understanding of, and the decisions they make about, cases that involve increasingly complex social and technical issues but may evoke ideological preferences.

So-called “virtual briefings” are currently being provided online to influence justices and law clerks outside of traditional briefing rules. The expert panels that we recommend are not intended to challenge the court’s authority and the rule of law; instead, they would provide an additional opportunity for justices to benefit from experts in an environment that may facilitate more targeted and balanced discussion. For example, we envision “packing” the court with economists who serve on expert panels to provide advice to all justices about the efficiency and distributional effects of potential rulings. A formal process could be established for long and short-term appointments.

It is useful to clarify and strengthen the proposal by raising and responding to some plausible objections to it.

  • It could be argued that economists are also ideological. I do not disagree, but the issues facing the court that involve economists are likely to be debated over empirical methods and findings and the scientific basis for disagreement will be clearer and perhaps easier to resolve than ideologically based disagreements over legal scriptures.
  • The Supreme Court is supposed to be narrowly constitutional and a check within the structure of governance. Certainly, however justices are free to be as narrow or broad as they want to assess cases brought before them. So, why not draw on expertise, where appropriate, which could lead to a more informed and socially desirable decision?
  • The Supreme Court is supposed to make legal decisions not economic decisions. Agreed, but it would clearly be useful for justices to know whether specific legal arguments and rulings would be at variance with economic efficiency and progressive redistribution goals. The law is generally not so narrow that it prevents those considerations and new precedents that could be more aligned with economic objectives. Justices also could simply reject those considerations, but at least they would be aware of them.
  • The approach is too academic, and it will turn court deliberations into a seminar with no practical insights. I am not suggesting that the expert panels should be restricted to academics. They should include economists from all walks of life that could provide insight on a case.
  • Finally, the legislative branch is supposed to contain experts and look at the big picture. Given that the legislative branch has become fractured and has not been objectively debating policies for decades, it is even more important for the judicial branch to step up and increase its engagement with experts and consider the big picture.

Of course, cases are likely to call for experts in several disciplines besides economics. Over time, justices would develop the habit of integrating basic legal doctrines, where appropriate and permissible, with the wisdom accumulated from a broad range of intellectual perspectives. The thought process that this inculcates could mitigate the influence of ideology on the court and lead to more rulings that truly benefit the nation.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3nwLH6C
via IFTTT