The important thing is Biden has to show a solution to immigration. And then make the case that the Congress won't do anything because Trump told them not to. It's a do nothing congress.
Just wondering: If a rash of tax and budget cuts meant that in your local jurisdiction it would take 4 years from filing your complaint in a civil matter--say breach of contract against the contractor who totally wrecked your house during a remodel and left it undone--4 years before the court even scheduled your case---
Would you think the solution to be saying that people had to be stopped from filing civil suits, or would it perchance be saying that more judges and court staff were needed to deal with the problem? Asking for a friend.
There absolutely should be a massive increase in the number of immigration judges, no question.
But the problem remains that thousands of people who don't qualify for asylum under the definition of international law -- "someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion" -- are clogging our asylum system because border personnel aren't permitted to deny entry to anyone who claims asylum, no matter how speciously.
The State Department should be able to provide Homeland Security with a list of countries where there is reason to believe that a claim of official persecution or officially tolerated persecution exists. The ONLY people who should be admitted to the United States on asylum claims are people from the countries on that list. Let me be absolutely clear: being afraid of criminals in your own country is tragic -- but it's not grounds for an asylum claim. Being from a failed state is tragic -- but it's not grounds for an asylum claim. Being from a country that's suffered a natural or manmade disaster is tragic -- but it's not grounds for an asylum claim. Wanting a better life for yourself and your family is admirable -- but it's not grounds for an asylum claim.
For all those situations I've mentioned, it's up to the Congress of the United States to establish policies to provide relief, if it chooses to do so. But it is not appropriate for the Executive Branch, regardless of any pressure it suffers from activist groups, to distort the asylum system to accommodate them.
And equally, I oppose deporting people who DO qualify for asylum unless they commit a crime. For that reason, I am just as opposed to the Biden Administration deporting Venezuelans who DO have "a well-founded fear of persecution" just because Maduro was willing to take them back as I am to their closing their eyes to phony asylum seekers.
This is analysis of the Asylum statute I did last February. The definition you quote is, in our statutes, the definition of refugee, and THAT is always entitled to asylum, period. Other definitions can be added (or subtracted) by the AG or Homeland Security Secretary. The problem, of course, is that if it is four years till you get a hearing, there is no way to weed out the iffy ones.
*********************************
"As the whole immigration thing heats up more and more with Foxian thundering about illegals, and the whole GOP shrieking invasion, it is important to keep in mind the following:
What is really important is that "illegal" only applies to illegal ENTRY (or re-entry.) If one enters legally, say with a visa or, most important right now, with a valid asylum claim, the remedy is CIVIL. Just as a breach of contract claim is. If you lost a contract dispute, should you be labeled an "illegal"? Chances are GREAT that the folks cleaning your toilet or mowing your lawn are undocumented but NOT illegal.
The ONLY way to solve the question of "is the asylum claim valid" is to beef up the immigration courts and process the claims. Those which are denied will result in deportation. The GOP is refusing to provide this funding.
The only real flexibility in this scheme is to beef up or tone down the definition of WHO is entitled to asylum. THAT is decided by procedures promulgated by The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General.
Those with refugee status are entitled to asylum, period. Refugee status is defined as someone subjected to "persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion..."
Note that "refugee" doesn't include things like fear of gangs or having climate change make it impossible to farm. THOSE can be included or not included in the reasons for Asylum, according to the Homeland Security or AG procedures mentioned above.
We don't know how much of this is changed in the currently debated bipartisan immigration bill.
This is all found in 8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum. Needless to say, there are lots of exceptions to the right to asylum/refugee status, including a long laundry list of criminal activities AND the fact that in your home country you were indeed one of the persecutors."
**********************************
It is not, btw, true that Border Patrol can't turn back people speciously claiming asylum if they fall under the exceptions listed in the statute. The list of things that are crimes that deny asylum is really long and if you are within that list, out you go, no need for a hearing.
"Note that "refugee" doesn't include things like fear of gangs or having climate change make it impossible to farm. THOSE can be included or not included in the reasons for Asylum, according to the Homeland Security or AG procedures mentioned above."
If this is true, and these abuses are based on nothing more than discretionary decisions within the Executive Branch, then the President DOES have the authority to improve the situation on his own authority by changing those decisions to correspond to the law and no more, and Biden should have done that on Day One, or on any day since. None of this means that Trump would be a better choice for President -- he isn't -- but it certainly makes Biden's border non-policy even less defensible than I thought it was.
I think the regulations for "defining" require the APA notice and hearing procedure. They can’t just be done by executive order. Not that either trump or Biden under pressure is paying much attention to that
Like you, I think that a President who is basing his legitimacy on his respect for the Constitution and the rule of law can't afford to try to unilaterally junk the legal requirements for changing regulations (and in Biden's case, we can hope that he learned that lesson from when he tried to do it on student debt). I suppose that the best he can do is to publish a detailed immigration reform plan for his second term that is heavy on adequate funding for personnel to streamline the system, and has plenty of features that make it clear that he is not aligned with the Open Borders wing of his party. And anything that he CAN do between now and November to communicate that, he should do. It's frustrating not to see any of this from him.
Biden has spent his entire term between rocks and hard places and it’s amazing what he has been able to accomplish despite this.
I’m disappointed in his reaction to the ICC warrants: Presumably there is some evidence and a warrant just says one prosecutor thinks it is sufficient. But under a rule of law that’s just a step—the pudding needs proof, of course.
Ironically, Netanyahu’s position vis a vis war crimes is very like Trump’s vis a via changing of financial documents. The question is did HE do it or did he just encourage others in his cabinet who are encouraging the terrorism (that’s what it is) of the “settlers” on the West Bank and who have been pushing their own “final solution” to the residents of Gaza.
The discontent does not justify the Hamas terrorism, AND the Hamas terrorism does not justify the West Bank terrorism. Terrorism is simply not acceptable no matter who perpetrates it. It is the epitome of “minority rule.” But the current Israeli government hasn’t from the get go even TRIED to reach a political solution, which is what is needed to get Hamas out of the hair of both the Palestinians and the Israelis.
But the GOP is using “full support of Israel no matter what it does” as a political bludgeon.
As with the Gaza/West Bank war, the immigration issue puts Biden in a terrible position. The rule of law is not working, for lack of resources in this case, and the political impediments are a real danger to the task of keeping trump from doing everything he says in his Time interview, his speeches, and his embrace of Project 2025.
As the original post shows Dems are reintroducing the failed bipartisan border agreement. That is probably just political theater at this point, but it is really the best that can be done to keep the real reason for the border crisis in its current state in the public eye.
Whether or not the asylum regs allow migration for gang violence or climate change, the people are going to keep coming. We HAVE to come up with a way of dealing with it. One way that doesn’t violate the current laws is Biden’s agreements with Mexico; Mexico is taking a much sterner stance on those coming through ITS Southern border, and that (say many commentators) is one reason the border crossings are down even as the summer season progresses. More help for the countries where the gang violence is occurring is another approach but—geeze, The Deficit. Not sure the problem of climate change, by this time, is solvable by anyone.
It's wrong to call Perry a "vigilante murderer". Vigilante implies that civilian authority was absent or unable to deal with a crime. In this case, there was no crime at all.
After weeks of his evading service and then posting that taunting tweet, it was just *chef’s kiss* that they tagged Rudy Colludy as he left his birthday party. He has become a total scofflaw and what he continues to do to the Georgia election workers is despicable. And I have a feeling that his “firing” is a scam cooked up between him and his very MAGA boss, Catsimitidis, to make sure the bankruptcy creditors have nothing to garnish.
At their ages, both Trump and Biden are surely on some medications that they would rather not advertise to the world, but it’s definitely Trump, if anyone, who has been on performance enhancing drugs at a debate. Still, Biden should refuse, because they will find some way to uncover and release the other medical information from the test - or just lie and say they have some and spread the lies.
Has Biden considered removing the cap on the number of legal immigrants?
If we can meet U.S. employers' demand for workers by bringing in all the legal immigrants needed for the U.S. job market, presumably the demand for illegal border crossings would drop precipitously.
Does Biden need Congress to take action in this way?
Biden “didn’t do it before” b/c Congress shd do it … he’s doing it now b/c Republicans in Congress won’t do it. He’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t … so, in true Biden fashion, he’ll do what he thinks is best for the country all things considered. It will be imperfect &ppl who cdn’t run a small diverse town will criticize him for managing our huge diverse country in a crazy on the edge world. It is what it is. Sane ppl need to step up, speak up &vote en masse to protect &preserve our democratic republic. It’s up to us. There are no perfect heroes out there waiting in the wings.
The GOP, now the party of L&N (Lawlessness and Nihilism). I'm not surprised about Rudy's fall into the festering pit of odium--he's always come across as incredibly vainglorious and self-imporant, and after reading about his repugnant behavior over the decades this final chapter is fitting.
The only people who actually take trump saying he wants to testify or that he will are reporters who seem to still not be aware of his propensity to lie. That telegraph reporter seems unaware of that fact
What does the Iranian President do, besides whatever the Supreme Leader wants or tells him to do? I mean, the guy basically has to be approved by the Supreme Leader to run and get elected, if I am not mistaken.
He seems to be largely a front put up by the Supreme Leadership to handle the scutwork and take the blame for things that go south--or am I mistaken?
I think of the President of Iran as a Prime Minister in the kind of constitutional monarchy where the monarch still maintains ultimate authority, but the President runs the administration, making sure that everybody gets paid, that the right terrorists are funded, and the right people are arrested in the proper large numbers. Raisi was very good at the arresting -- and condemning -- part while he headed the judiciary, so I doubt that there will be much mourning during this "period of mourning". Every indication is that he was widely, if quietly, hated.
My non-expert understanding is that the Supreme Leader is supreme, but usually somewhat aloof. The president does direct policy, within an acceptable range. Iranian elections are real, but tightly controlled, not free or fair. All candidates for president and parliament must indeed be approved, but it's the Guardian Council - half appointed by the SL - mainly doing the vetting, and then later also signing off on their laws.
It is officially frowned upon, but Iranian voters can register dissatisfaction with the choices by turning in blank ballots, and the tally of these is reported. In the 2021 election that elevated Raisi, "Invalid blank" actually placed second, for the first time.
The Supreme Leader *can* step in and order a reversal in any part of the process at any time, or the dismissal of any official, but he usually doesn't have to be so direct.
This is off topic, but I think the judge in the Steve Bannon comtempt case is another Aileen Cannon.
He bought Bannon 18 months by saying that it wouldn't be appropriate to jail Bannon pending appeal, since his appeal had a "great chance of success". Now that the appeal has predictably been shot down, he seems to just be ignoring the case.
1) Age limits: Set an upper age limit for all federal judicial offices at which you MUST retire.
2) Replacement of permanent SC justice positions with randomly selected judges/justices from the federal judiciary who have over X years of tenure in the position--meaning thhat you cannot stack the justices to build permanent majorities. It also gets rid of the whole mess of SCotUS appointments
3) Binding and enforceable ethics legislation that triggers impeachment proceeedings (and forces recusals) when criteria are met.
I love all the Bulwark podcasts, The Lincoln Project, Resolute Square, Fast Politics, The Breakdown, Protect Democracy, RVAT, etc. [plus Randy Rainbow!] and believe that your work makes the Democratic party, and the average voter, smarter. I value you guys and your mission-driven work more than just about anything except my family.
However, because I am a worrywart, I am concerned about your/our future. If (God willing) Joe Biden is re-elected in November or (God willing) DJT takes that final bite of the hamburger from hell, will we still have you and your cohorts to help us stay sane?
You are in a prime position to help re-constitute a decent Republican party, and there will still be a bunch of MAGA Republicans to defeat in future elections. I fervently hope that you have a plan/plot to continue with your advocacy of saving liberal democracy for upcoming generations. Thank you.
There's actually a pretty decent chance that after Biden & Trump...this thing gets a whole lot uglier and violent. Nature abhors a vacuum and the GOP side will be a blackhole where no truth or light escapes...and will attract a bunch of Trump-clone wannabees.
On the good news side is that without a Trump...achieving unity will be very difficult. Their Trump "unity" (i.e. 30% of the GOP) makes them a force on that side of the political aisle.
I'm guessing we have about 10 more years of needing the Bulwark+ and sites like it.
This is especially true if the decent, patriotic people who have been thrown out of the Republican Party don't stop weeping and gnashing their teeth, for God's sake, and get busy starting a new party to REPLACE the incurably corrupt GOP. You can't replace something with nothing, and the MAGA Republicans, bad as they are, are something. If nobody comes up with something better as a Second Party, they're going to stay the Second Party.
Between some articles I read this weekend about Dems gearing up to end the filibuster if they retain the Senate and Jill Lawrence's article about SC reform, I'm starting to get excited to vote for the first time in close to 16 years. Instead of a choice between a crap sandwich and a slightly less soggy crap sandwich I might finally be offered a party that is willing to accept blindly following tradition won't be getting us out of our polarized partisan gridlock that is threatening to break the republic anytime soon. Biden and the Dems could definitely grab back the youth vote if they leaned into that and appeared serious about it. That said they better back it up with action this time if/when they get voted in.
It never ceases to amaze me how Democrats think ending the filibuster would be a good thing. After Trump's win in 2016, the Rs controlled the House and Senate. What saved the Democrats? The filibuster. It is highly unlikely that the Democrats will have a majority in the Senate after the 2024 election. The only thing that might save them from complete R control will once again be the filibuster. And they want to get rid of it. Go figuree.
Remember, the filibuster was never an intended part of our system of checks and balances, much less carefully calibrated by the Founders. In fact, historical research is pretty clear that it wasn't "intended" at all: it was the accidental result of Aaron Burr's (yes, THAT Arron Burr!) overeager attempt to streamline the rules of the Senate. It took obstructionists decades to discover that it was there, and how useful it could be to them. It speaks poorly of both sides that they only TALK about getting rid of it when they're in the majority, and no accident that it never seems to happen. But it should.
Not sure what point you are making. Of course, the filbuster was never envisioned by Founders to be a constitutional check. But the fact remains it protects the minority party from being walked over by the majority. Since they minority party in the Senate will almost certainly be Democrats during Trump 2.0, why would you want to get rid of it?
For the same reason that we got rid of having the Senate elected by the state legislatures: because even though some people liked the one and like the other, both turned out to be a lot more harmful than helpful. And there's even less justification for the filibuster, because it was an accident in the first place.
It only benefits those who wish for nothing to change. It has helped lead to this situation where the best one can hope for is blocking their opponent rather than making a positive change which in turn has led to intense frustration on both sides.
Plus, lets also be real. If Trump gets elected again and orders a majority Republican Senate to get rid of it then it will be gone in a heartbeat. Dem forbearance has never been rewarded in modern times when Republicans have an opportunity to seize power even before Trump hit the scene. The idea of holding onto it as a dependable defensive measure is just silly even if I was happy with extreme minority veto power.
I am all for ending the flibuster because I think that people should get what they vote for good and hard. It might do a bit to squash some of the more baltant stupidity, but probably not.
This. Had we been without it the whole time things likely wouldn't have gotten to this point. We could move past disagreements by proving or disproving them in practice rather than sitting frozen and becoming polarized on every issue as problems and tensions get worse and worse. Even if it turns out the US is MAGA country after all, great. I can accept defeat and move on to somewhere better. Its the limbo that sucks more than anything. I'm against minority rule even if it favors me.
A LOT of people are tired of the limbo--that is one of the things contributing to our current problems. It is one of the primary contributors to the rising sense of nihilism, the desire to burn the system down.
The important thing is Biden has to show a solution to immigration. And then make the case that the Congress won't do anything because Trump told them not to. It's a do nothing congress.
Just wondering: If a rash of tax and budget cuts meant that in your local jurisdiction it would take 4 years from filing your complaint in a civil matter--say breach of contract against the contractor who totally wrecked your house during a remodel and left it undone--4 years before the court even scheduled your case---
Would you think the solution to be saying that people had to be stopped from filing civil suits, or would it perchance be saying that more judges and court staff were needed to deal with the problem? Asking for a friend.
There absolutely should be a massive increase in the number of immigration judges, no question.
But the problem remains that thousands of people who don't qualify for asylum under the definition of international law -- "someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion" -- are clogging our asylum system because border personnel aren't permitted to deny entry to anyone who claims asylum, no matter how speciously.
The State Department should be able to provide Homeland Security with a list of countries where there is reason to believe that a claim of official persecution or officially tolerated persecution exists. The ONLY people who should be admitted to the United States on asylum claims are people from the countries on that list. Let me be absolutely clear: being afraid of criminals in your own country is tragic -- but it's not grounds for an asylum claim. Being from a failed state is tragic -- but it's not grounds for an asylum claim. Being from a country that's suffered a natural or manmade disaster is tragic -- but it's not grounds for an asylum claim. Wanting a better life for yourself and your family is admirable -- but it's not grounds for an asylum claim.
For all those situations I've mentioned, it's up to the Congress of the United States to establish policies to provide relief, if it chooses to do so. But it is not appropriate for the Executive Branch, regardless of any pressure it suffers from activist groups, to distort the asylum system to accommodate them.
And equally, I oppose deporting people who DO qualify for asylum unless they commit a crime. For that reason, I am just as opposed to the Biden Administration deporting Venezuelans who DO have "a well-founded fear of persecution" just because Maduro was willing to take them back as I am to their closing their eyes to phony asylum seekers.
This is analysis of the Asylum statute I did last February. The definition you quote is, in our statutes, the definition of refugee, and THAT is always entitled to asylum, period. Other definitions can be added (or subtracted) by the AG or Homeland Security Secretary. The problem, of course, is that if it is four years till you get a hearing, there is no way to weed out the iffy ones.
*********************************
"As the whole immigration thing heats up more and more with Foxian thundering about illegals, and the whole GOP shrieking invasion, it is important to keep in mind the following:
What is really important is that "illegal" only applies to illegal ENTRY (or re-entry.) If one enters legally, say with a visa or, most important right now, with a valid asylum claim, the remedy is CIVIL. Just as a breach of contract claim is. If you lost a contract dispute, should you be labeled an "illegal"? Chances are GREAT that the folks cleaning your toilet or mowing your lawn are undocumented but NOT illegal.
The ONLY way to solve the question of "is the asylum claim valid" is to beef up the immigration courts and process the claims. Those which are denied will result in deportation. The GOP is refusing to provide this funding.
The only real flexibility in this scheme is to beef up or tone down the definition of WHO is entitled to asylum. THAT is decided by procedures promulgated by The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General.
Those with refugee status are entitled to asylum, period. Refugee status is defined as someone subjected to "persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion..."
Note that "refugee" doesn't include things like fear of gangs or having climate change make it impossible to farm. THOSE can be included or not included in the reasons for Asylum, according to the Homeland Security or AG procedures mentioned above.
We don't know how much of this is changed in the currently debated bipartisan immigration bill.
This is all found in 8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum. Needless to say, there are lots of exceptions to the right to asylum/refugee status, including a long laundry list of criminal activities AND the fact that in your home country you were indeed one of the persecutors."
**********************************
It is not, btw, true that Border Patrol can't turn back people speciously claiming asylum if they fall under the exceptions listed in the statute. The list of things that are crimes that deny asylum is really long and if you are within that list, out you go, no need for a hearing.
Thanks for the clarifications.
"Note that "refugee" doesn't include things like fear of gangs or having climate change make it impossible to farm. THOSE can be included or not included in the reasons for Asylum, according to the Homeland Security or AG procedures mentioned above."
If this is true, and these abuses are based on nothing more than discretionary decisions within the Executive Branch, then the President DOES have the authority to improve the situation on his own authority by changing those decisions to correspond to the law and no more, and Biden should have done that on Day One, or on any day since. None of this means that Trump would be a better choice for President -- he isn't -- but it certainly makes Biden's border non-policy even less defensible than I thought it was.
I think the regulations for "defining" require the APA notice and hearing procedure. They can’t just be done by executive order. Not that either trump or Biden under pressure is paying much attention to that
Like you, I think that a President who is basing his legitimacy on his respect for the Constitution and the rule of law can't afford to try to unilaterally junk the legal requirements for changing regulations (and in Biden's case, we can hope that he learned that lesson from when he tried to do it on student debt). I suppose that the best he can do is to publish a detailed immigration reform plan for his second term that is heavy on adequate funding for personnel to streamline the system, and has plenty of features that make it clear that he is not aligned with the Open Borders wing of his party. And anything that he CAN do between now and November to communicate that, he should do. It's frustrating not to see any of this from him.
Biden has spent his entire term between rocks and hard places and it’s amazing what he has been able to accomplish despite this.
I’m disappointed in his reaction to the ICC warrants: Presumably there is some evidence and a warrant just says one prosecutor thinks it is sufficient. But under a rule of law that’s just a step—the pudding needs proof, of course.
Ironically, Netanyahu’s position vis a vis war crimes is very like Trump’s vis a via changing of financial documents. The question is did HE do it or did he just encourage others in his cabinet who are encouraging the terrorism (that’s what it is) of the “settlers” on the West Bank and who have been pushing their own “final solution” to the residents of Gaza.
(for more on the terrorism referenced read Haaretz for daily stories of attacks on Palestinians in their own areas of the West Bank. For the reason behind Palestinian discontent see the NY Times article that isn’t getting enough attention: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/magazine/israel-west-bank-settler-violence-impunity.html
The discontent does not justify the Hamas terrorism, AND the Hamas terrorism does not justify the West Bank terrorism. Terrorism is simply not acceptable no matter who perpetrates it. It is the epitome of “minority rule.” But the current Israeli government hasn’t from the get go even TRIED to reach a political solution, which is what is needed to get Hamas out of the hair of both the Palestinians and the Israelis.
But the GOP is using “full support of Israel no matter what it does” as a political bludgeon.
As with the Gaza/West Bank war, the immigration issue puts Biden in a terrible position. The rule of law is not working, for lack of resources in this case, and the political impediments are a real danger to the task of keeping trump from doing everything he says in his Time interview, his speeches, and his embrace of Project 2025.
As the original post shows Dems are reintroducing the failed bipartisan border agreement. That is probably just political theater at this point, but it is really the best that can be done to keep the real reason for the border crisis in its current state in the public eye.
Whether or not the asylum regs allow migration for gang violence or climate change, the people are going to keep coming. We HAVE to come up with a way of dealing with it. One way that doesn’t violate the current laws is Biden’s agreements with Mexico; Mexico is taking a much sterner stance on those coming through ITS Southern border, and that (say many commentators) is one reason the border crossings are down even as the summer season progresses. More help for the countries where the gang violence is occurring is another approach but—geeze, The Deficit. Not sure the problem of climate change, by this time, is solvable by anyone.
It's wrong to call Perry a "vigilante murderer". Vigilante implies that civilian authority was absent or unable to deal with a crime. In this case, there was no crime at all.
After weeks of his evading service and then posting that taunting tweet, it was just *chef’s kiss* that they tagged Rudy Colludy as he left his birthday party. He has become a total scofflaw and what he continues to do to the Georgia election workers is despicable. And I have a feeling that his “firing” is a scam cooked up between him and his very MAGA boss, Catsimitidis, to make sure the bankruptcy creditors have nothing to garnish.
At their ages, both Trump and Biden are surely on some medications that they would rather not advertise to the world, but it’s definitely Trump, if anyone, who has been on performance enhancing drugs at a debate. Still, Biden should refuse, because they will find some way to uncover and release the other medical information from the test - or just lie and say they have some and spread the lies.
"the surgical smiles of the bleach-blonde cougars"
That's a damned good line that I hope everyone appreciated.
Watching gay porn is the probably least objectionable thing about Fuentes.
Hi Bill,
Has Biden considered removing the cap on the number of legal immigrants?
If we can meet U.S. employers' demand for workers by bringing in all the legal immigrants needed for the U.S. job market, presumably the demand for illegal border crossings would drop precipitously.
Does Biden need Congress to take action in this way?
All the best,
Lee Rone, Memphis
Biden “didn’t do it before” b/c Congress shd do it … he’s doing it now b/c Republicans in Congress won’t do it. He’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t … so, in true Biden fashion, he’ll do what he thinks is best for the country all things considered. It will be imperfect &ppl who cdn’t run a small diverse town will criticize him for managing our huge diverse country in a crazy on the edge world. It is what it is. Sane ppl need to step up, speak up &vote en masse to protect &preserve our democratic republic. It’s up to us. There are no perfect heroes out there waiting in the wings.
The GOP, now the party of L&N (Lawlessness and Nihilism). I'm not surprised about Rudy's fall into the festering pit of odium--he's always come across as incredibly vainglorious and self-imporant, and after reading about his repugnant behavior over the decades this final chapter is fitting.
The only people who actually take trump saying he wants to testify or that he will are reporters who seem to still not be aware of his propensity to lie. That telegraph reporter seems unaware of that fact
What does the Iranian President do, besides whatever the Supreme Leader wants or tells him to do? I mean, the guy basically has to be approved by the Supreme Leader to run and get elected, if I am not mistaken.
He seems to be largely a front put up by the Supreme Leadership to handle the scutwork and take the blame for things that go south--or am I mistaken?
I think of the President of Iran as a Prime Minister in the kind of constitutional monarchy where the monarch still maintains ultimate authority, but the President runs the administration, making sure that everybody gets paid, that the right terrorists are funded, and the right people are arrested in the proper large numbers. Raisi was very good at the arresting -- and condemning -- part while he headed the judiciary, so I doubt that there will be much mourning during this "period of mourning". Every indication is that he was widely, if quietly, hated.
My non-expert understanding is that the Supreme Leader is supreme, but usually somewhat aloof. The president does direct policy, within an acceptable range. Iranian elections are real, but tightly controlled, not free or fair. All candidates for president and parliament must indeed be approved, but it's the Guardian Council - half appointed by the SL - mainly doing the vetting, and then later also signing off on their laws.
It is officially frowned upon, but Iranian voters can register dissatisfaction with the choices by turning in blank ballots, and the tally of these is reported. In the 2021 election that elevated Raisi, "Invalid blank" actually placed second, for the first time.
The Supreme Leader *can* step in and order a reversal in any part of the process at any time, or the dismissal of any official, but he usually doesn't have to be so direct.
This is off topic, but I think the judge in the Steve Bannon comtempt case is another Aileen Cannon.
He bought Bannon 18 months by saying that it wouldn't be appropriate to jail Bannon pending appeal, since his appeal had a "great chance of success". Now that the appeal has predictably been shot down, he seems to just be ignoring the case.
SCotUS reform:
1) Age limits: Set an upper age limit for all federal judicial offices at which you MUST retire.
2) Replacement of permanent SC justice positions with randomly selected judges/justices from the federal judiciary who have over X years of tenure in the position--meaning thhat you cannot stack the justices to build permanent majorities. It also gets rid of the whole mess of SCotUS appointments
3) Binding and enforceable ethics legislation that triggers impeachment proceeedings (and forces recusals) when criteria are met.
Requires constitutional amendment. Though they can be removed if impeached. Only one was back in 1805!
Serious Inquiry –
I love all the Bulwark podcasts, The Lincoln Project, Resolute Square, Fast Politics, The Breakdown, Protect Democracy, RVAT, etc. [plus Randy Rainbow!] and believe that your work makes the Democratic party, and the average voter, smarter. I value you guys and your mission-driven work more than just about anything except my family.
However, because I am a worrywart, I am concerned about your/our future. If (God willing) Joe Biden is re-elected in November or (God willing) DJT takes that final bite of the hamburger from hell, will we still have you and your cohorts to help us stay sane?
You are in a prime position to help re-constitute a decent Republican party, and there will still be a bunch of MAGA Republicans to defeat in future elections. I fervently hope that you have a plan/plot to continue with your advocacy of saving liberal democracy for upcoming generations. Thank you.
Colleen
There's actually a pretty decent chance that after Biden & Trump...this thing gets a whole lot uglier and violent. Nature abhors a vacuum and the GOP side will be a blackhole where no truth or light escapes...and will attract a bunch of Trump-clone wannabees.
On the good news side is that without a Trump...achieving unity will be very difficult. Their Trump "unity" (i.e. 30% of the GOP) makes them a force on that side of the political aisle.
I'm guessing we have about 10 more years of needing the Bulwark+ and sites like it.
This is especially true if the decent, patriotic people who have been thrown out of the Republican Party don't stop weeping and gnashing their teeth, for God's sake, and get busy starting a new party to REPLACE the incurably corrupt GOP. You can't replace something with nothing, and the MAGA Republicans, bad as they are, are something. If nobody comes up with something better as a Second Party, they're going to stay the Second Party.
From your lips to...
i was thinking it would be an inversion of the "night of the long knives"... eh, metaphorically speaking.
Between some articles I read this weekend about Dems gearing up to end the filibuster if they retain the Senate and Jill Lawrence's article about SC reform, I'm starting to get excited to vote for the first time in close to 16 years. Instead of a choice between a crap sandwich and a slightly less soggy crap sandwich I might finally be offered a party that is willing to accept blindly following tradition won't be getting us out of our polarized partisan gridlock that is threatening to break the republic anytime soon. Biden and the Dems could definitely grab back the youth vote if they leaned into that and appeared serious about it. That said they better back it up with action this time if/when they get voted in.
It never ceases to amaze me how Democrats think ending the filibuster would be a good thing. After Trump's win in 2016, the Rs controlled the House and Senate. What saved the Democrats? The filibuster. It is highly unlikely that the Democrats will have a majority in the Senate after the 2024 election. The only thing that might save them from complete R control will once again be the filibuster. And they want to get rid of it. Go figuree.
Remember, the filibuster was never an intended part of our system of checks and balances, much less carefully calibrated by the Founders. In fact, historical research is pretty clear that it wasn't "intended" at all: it was the accidental result of Aaron Burr's (yes, THAT Arron Burr!) overeager attempt to streamline the rules of the Senate. It took obstructionists decades to discover that it was there, and how useful it could be to them. It speaks poorly of both sides that they only TALK about getting rid of it when they're in the majority, and no accident that it never seems to happen. But it should.
Not sure what point you are making. Of course, the filbuster was never envisioned by Founders to be a constitutional check. But the fact remains it protects the minority party from being walked over by the majority. Since they minority party in the Senate will almost certainly be Democrats during Trump 2.0, why would you want to get rid of it?
For the same reason that we got rid of having the Senate elected by the state legislatures: because even though some people liked the one and like the other, both turned out to be a lot more harmful than helpful. And there's even less justification for the filibuster, because it was an accident in the first place.
It only benefits those who wish for nothing to change. It has helped lead to this situation where the best one can hope for is blocking their opponent rather than making a positive change which in turn has led to intense frustration on both sides.
Plus, lets also be real. If Trump gets elected again and orders a majority Republican Senate to get rid of it then it will be gone in a heartbeat. Dem forbearance has never been rewarded in modern times when Republicans have an opportunity to seize power even before Trump hit the scene. The idea of holding onto it as a dependable defensive measure is just silly even if I was happy with extreme minority veto power.
I am all for ending the flibuster because I think that people should get what they vote for good and hard. It might do a bit to squash some of the more baltant stupidity, but probably not.
This. Had we been without it the whole time things likely wouldn't have gotten to this point. We could move past disagreements by proving or disproving them in practice rather than sitting frozen and becoming polarized on every issue as problems and tensions get worse and worse. Even if it turns out the US is MAGA country after all, great. I can accept defeat and move on to somewhere better. Its the limbo that sucks more than anything. I'm against minority rule even if it favors me.
A LOT of people are tired of the limbo--that is one of the things contributing to our current problems. It is one of the primary contributors to the rising sense of nihilism, the desire to burn the system down.
"I'm against minority rule even if it favors me."
Clearly a minority opinion...
Thanks for giving us some real facts about Rudy’s tenure as “America’s Mayor.” The truth is refreshing.