No Sandwich is Safe: The Joe Biden Presidency

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 31110
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: No Sandwich is Safe: The Joe Biden Presidency

Post by Warren »

Hugh Akston wrote: 22 Jan 2021, 15:52
Jasper wrote: 22 Jan 2021, 15:33 I've seem them state that Trump 'set a precedent' with Mattis, so of course Austin should be waivered.
So Donald Trump is now America's moral yard stick.
Oh, you said the quiet part out loud.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
User avatar
Shem
Posts: 8969
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: No Sandwich is Safe: The Joe Biden Presidency

Post by Shem »

Hugh Akston wrote: 22 Jan 2021, 15:52
Jasper wrote: 22 Jan 2021, 15:33 I've seem them state that Trump 'set a precedent' with Mattis, so of course Austin should be waivered.
So Donald Trump is now America's moral yard stick.
Isn't that exactly why people worry about breaking precedent?
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen
User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 26873
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: No Sandwich is Safe: The Joe Biden Presidency

Post by Jennifer »

thoreau wrote: 22 Jan 2021, 15:54 As much as I acknowledge the necessity of a National Guard response to the Jan. 6 riot, it's worrying that everyone looks to the military as the institution that can bring reassurance. Bipartisan unity for giving a general a waiver is part of that bigger trend. And I say that while harboring the suspicion that the National Guard is probably better-disciplined than civilian cops when dealing with protesters, and hence (in some sense) a lesser evil. So we accept more and more erosion of barriers because they are a respected institution.

I mean, in these divisive times, do you really want Our Brave Men And Women In Uniform to stay on the other side of the Rubico...I mean, the Potomac?
The really scary thing is -- I say this while trying to imagine I'm, like, a historian or history student a couple hundred years from now, totally detached from this and with no dogs in this fight, except that if I don't get a good grade on my term paper about American Trumpism and its aftermath I'll fall off the honor roll this quarter -- IF we-the-people end up going through an unhealthy "trust the military" phase, it might be because that was the only major American legal-power institution that did NOT willingly corrupt itself during Trump's reign -- both houses of Congress had high-rank members who enabled Trump rather than stood up to him, even to the point of supporting his bogus election-fraud claims AFTER the Jan. 6 riot; plenty of members of the judiciary ruled in Trump's favor throughout his four years in office (until his post-election shenanigans went too far for even the sleaziest Republican judge to rubber-stamp) ... throughout the four years of Trump's term, the only American institution which had NO high-ranking members turn it into a Trump enabler was the military, even to the point of military leaders putting out press releases saying "we're not going to get involved in the American election, 'cux that's just not how we roll" while the House and Senate both had delegations more than ready to openly dismiss legally cast ballots solely because they were cast for Democratic candidates.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b
User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 21248
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: No Sandwich is Safe: The Joe Biden Presidency

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

Time was when career military officers were effectively prohibited from taking civil service jobs after retirement. In the course of my career with the DoD -- in fact, just around the time when it could affect my personal promotion chances -- the rule was abandoned. Sure enough, thousands of jobs that would have been available for civilian career promotion suddenly started getting filled by recently retired officers.

I'm not saying that's a good or a bad thing, per se, my own career aside. It's arguably a terrible waste of experience to prohibit career officers from those jobs after, as was typically the case, they either hit 30 years or had been passed over for promotion twice. Nor do I think it is a per se threat to the fundamental principle of civilian control of the military.

Having said that, I think the waiting period before being permitted to act as a registered lobbyist or to take a civilian job with a government contractor in a revolving door manner is far more worrisome than some arbitrary waiting period for a general officer to be nominated and confirmed to senior executive political appointments up to and including SECDEF. The longer you're away from the institution, the further behind you are, and you really want a SECDEF who knows who's who and what's what and can, as they say, hit the floor running.

Shorter version. I couldn't care less about such waivers. If anything, I think the rule is suspect.
User avatar
Shem
Posts: 8969
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: No Sandwich is Safe: The Joe Biden Presidency

Post by Shem »

D.A. Ridgely wrote: 22 Jan 2021, 17:25 Time was when career military officers were effectively prohibited from taking civil service jobs after retirement. In the course of my career with the DoD -- in fact, just around the time when it could affect my personal promotion chances -- the rule was abandoned. Sure enough, thousands of jobs that would have been available for civilian career promotion suddenly started getting filled by recently retired officers.
At this point, given the 10-point preference vets get in the recruitment process and the existence of Special Hiring Authorities that are only open to vets and sometimes Schedule A applicants, it's actually harder to get in as a civilian. A lot harder, actually.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen
User avatar
Highway
Posts: 14150
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: No Sandwich is Safe: The Joe Biden Presidency

Post by Highway »

Jadagul wrote: 22 Jan 2021, 15:41 Everyone I follow was up in arms over the Austin nomination for exactly this reason.

A lot of them decided not to pick a fight over it after the capitol riot, though, basically on the grounds that we need to have someone in the role.
Pretty much the same here, the places I read were mostly critical of the idea of the Austin nomination. The article I read after the waiver was given talked a lot about how he had stated he was going to prioritize civilian staffers in decision-making.
Well, that was a long walk down a windy beach to a cafe that was closed...
User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 31545
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: No Sandwich is Safe: The Joe Biden Presidency

Post by thoreau »

D.A. Ridgely wrote: 22 Jan 2021, 17:25Having said that, I think the waiting period before being permitted to act as a registered lobbyist or to take a civilian job with a government contractor in a revolving door manner is far more worrisome than some arbitrary waiting period for a general officer to be nominated and confirmed to senior executive political appointments up to and including SECDEF. The longer you're away from the institution, the further behind you are, and you really want a SECDEF who knows who's who and what's what and can, as they say, hit the floor running.
On the particulars, I don't think it's such a bad thing if this or that individual appointment goes to a recently retired officer. But if the principle of civilian control is to be meaningful in operation then both parties should have ample "farm teams" of civilians with recent national security experience and the ability to move into the job quickly. If they don't, then there's a deeper problem than a particular rule or time limit.

On the margins, I'm willing to entertain all sorts of possibilities and concede all sorts of particular cases. But if people feel the need to repeatedly visit the edge cases rather than make safer, nowhere-near-the-edge picks, that's a bigger problem.

I do agree that the general "revolving door" issue between government and totally-not-government private contractors is a big one. I'm not opposed to using contractors for a lot of things, but we've seen both in the military and other avenues that contracting provides a way for the government to hide its own size and scope via rhetorical games. (Next week I plan to tell my doctor that my belly fat is just Lipophilic Contracting, not an integral part of my body, and hence my actual mass is lower.)
"...if that monkey gets any smarter it's going to start shorting TSLA."
--JD
User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 31545
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: No Sandwich is Safe: The Joe Biden Presidency

Post by thoreau »

Well, we won't have to worry about Uncle Joe getting his radical left agenda thru Congress because Cocaine Mitch somehow remains effectively in charge of the Senate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/25/us/s ... uster.html

The article starts with fights over the filibuster, which, whatever. I don't care much either way. But this is amazing:
The stalemate has created a bizarre situation in which most Senate committees are frozen under Republican control and new senators cannot be seated on the panels even though Democrats now command the Senate majority.
Full respect to Mitch. That dude understands the interplay of power and procedure better than any Blue ever could.
"...if that monkey gets any smarter it's going to start shorting TSLA."
--JD
User avatar
Shem
Posts: 8969
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: No Sandwich is Safe: The Joe Biden Presidency

Post by Shem »

thoreau wrote: 25 Jan 2021, 16:28 Well, we won't have to worry about Uncle Joe getting his radical left agenda thru Congress because Cocaine Mitch somehow remains effectively in charge of the Senate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/25/us/s ... uster.html

The article starts with fights over the filibuster, which, whatever. I don't care much either way. But this is amazing:
The stalemate has created a bizarre situation in which most Senate committees are frozen under Republican control and new senators cannot be seated on the panels even though Democrats now command the Senate majority.
Full respect to Mitch. That dude understands the interplay of power and procedure better than any Blue ever could.
If the filibuster dies, it'll be because of shit like this.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen
User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 31545
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: No Sandwich is Safe: The Joe Biden Presidency

Post by thoreau »

Shem wrote: 25 Jan 2021, 17:56
thoreau wrote: 25 Jan 2021, 16:28 Well, we won't have to worry about Uncle Joe getting his radical left agenda thru Congress because Cocaine Mitch somehow remains effectively in charge of the Senate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/25/us/s ... uster.html

The article starts with fights over the filibuster, which, whatever. I don't care much either way. But this is amazing:
The stalemate has created a bizarre situation in which most Senate committees are frozen under Republican control and new senators cannot be seated on the panels even though Democrats now command the Senate majority.
Full respect to Mitch. That dude understands the interplay of power and procedure better than any Blue ever could.
If the filibuster dies, it'll be because of shit like this.
Will it matter? Mitch will still pull procedural shit and get his way while Schumer hems and haws for fear that a few Democratic Senators from red states might lose re-election if he forces them to join a narrow vote denying Mitch something he wants.
"...if that monkey gets any smarter it's going to start shorting TSLA."
--JD
User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 20375
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: Elev. 5280 ft

Re: No Sandwich is Safe: The Joe Biden Presidency

Post by Hugh Akston »

Is there anyone besides Rand Paul who would mourn the death of the filibuster at this point?
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Well if they're blaming libertarians again then things must be going back to normal." ~dbcooper
User avatar
Pham Nuwen
Posts: 9406
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 02:17

Re: No Sandwich is Safe: The Joe Biden Presidency

Post by Pham Nuwen »

Hugh Akston wrote: 25 Jan 2021, 18:11 Is there anyone besides Rand Paul who would mourn the death of the filibuster at this point?
Me?
Goddamn libertarian message board. Hugh Akston

leave me to my mescaline smoothie in peace, please. dhex
User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 21248
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: No Sandwich is Safe: The Joe Biden Presidency

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

I'm personally in favor of Congress doing nothing more than undoing its past mistakes, but maybe gridlock has become something both parties can hide behind. Who knows? Maybe death of the filibuster would make both parties have to compromise instead of wildly swinging back and forth? Nah, probably not, but it's a thought.
User avatar
nicole
Posts: 11125
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: No Sandwich is Safe: The Joe Biden Presidency

Post by nicole »

Pham Nuwen wrote: 25 Jan 2021, 18:32
Hugh Akston wrote: 25 Jan 2021, 18:11 Is there anyone besides Rand Paul who would mourn the death of the filibuster at this point?
Me?
Me three
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Sliced bagels aren't why trump won; it's why it doesn't matter who wins." -dhex
User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 20375
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: Elev. 5280 ft

Re: No Sandwich is Safe: The Joe Biden Presidency

Post by Hugh Akston »

What is it good for, exactly?
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Well if they're blaming libertarians again then things must be going back to normal." ~dbcooper
User avatar
Pham Nuwen
Posts: 9406
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 02:17

Re: No Sandwich is Safe: The Joe Biden Presidency

Post by Pham Nuwen »

Hugh Akston wrote: 25 Jan 2021, 21:18 What is it good for, exactly?
If you cant sweeten the legislation enough to get cross party votes on it then its probably bad legislation to begin with. It will absolutely be used to delay or end legislation I care about or at least am sympathetic to.

I'm fine with gridlock honestly.
Goddamn libertarian message board. Hugh Akston

leave me to my mescaline smoothie in peace, please. dhex
User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 7861
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: No Sandwich is Safe: The Joe Biden Presidency

Post by Jadagul »

If you think it's bad that the government can do things/make decisions, the filibuster is nice as another way of the government failing to do things or make decisions.

If you think it's important for the government to be able to act, then the filibuster is a giant middle finger with no real principled justification.
User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 17924
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: No Sandwich is Safe: The Joe Biden Presidency

Post by Aresen »

Pham Nuwen wrote: 25 Jan 2021, 21:45 If you cant sweeten the legislation enough to get cross party votes on it then its probably bad legislation to begin with.
Not sure about that. Sweetning the deal often means allowing some POS payoff swat turning your life history over to the cops in return for allowing the feds to dictate your choice of ISP.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex
User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 21248
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: No Sandwich is Safe: The Joe Biden Presidency

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

Jadagul wrote: 25 Jan 2021, 21:54 If you think it's bad that the government can do things/make decisions, the filibuster is nice as another way of the government failing to do things or make decisions.

If you think it's important for the government to be able to act, then the filibuster is a giant middle finger with no real principled justification.
There are important actions Congress should be able to take. There is, however, very little likelihood it will take them filibuster or no filibuster.
User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 20375
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: Elev. 5280 ft

Re: No Sandwich is Safe: The Joe Biden Presidency

Post by Hugh Akston »

Pham Nuwen wrote: 25 Jan 2021, 21:45
Hugh Akston wrote: 25 Jan 2021, 21:18 What is it good for, exactly?
If you cant sweeten the legislation enough to get cross party votes on it then its probably bad legislation to begin with. It will absolutely be used to delay or end legislation I care about or at least am sympathetic to.

I'm fine with gridlock honestly.
Yeah but you don't get gridlock. What you get is backroom deals to sway holdout senators who are holding a bill hostage to get sweetheart concessions for whoever is bankrolling their reelection. You end up with legislation that's still bad but also has a bunch of bullshit stapled to it.

Also, the stuff that does get bipartisan support is shit like RealID, the Patriot Act, and continued funding for America's forever wars.

And Congress' inability to get bills through puts pressure on the Executive branch to rule by presidential and regulatory fiat, rendering Congress even less relevant.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Well if they're blaming libertarians again then things must be going back to normal." ~dbcooper
User avatar
Mo
Posts: 25919
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: No Sandwich is Safe: The Joe Biden Presidency

Post by Mo »

Hugh Akston wrote: 26 Jan 2021, 01:36And Congress' inability to get bills through puts pressure on the Executive branch to rule by presidential and regulatory fiat, rendering Congress even less relevant.
This. It not a coincidence that the imperial presidency accelerated at the same time that routine filibusters did. The other thing is that it provides electoral accountability. Mitch likes the filibuster because it means he gets to flog ending abortion without ever having to do anything to do it because he knows it's unpopular. Forcing parties to put up or shut up on their extreme positions would provide some much needed clean-up on campaign rhetoric.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex
User avatar
Pham Nuwen
Posts: 9406
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 02:17

Re: No Sandwich is Safe: The Joe Biden Presidency

Post by Pham Nuwen »

I just watched 4 years of a senate that had to include their cross party brethren in most matters for fear of organized filibusters of important bills. Earmarks are gone and I don't see how the back room deals end just because there is no filibuster.
Goddamn libertarian message board. Hugh Akston

leave me to my mescaline smoothie in peace, please. dhex
User avatar
Mo
Posts: 25919
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: No Sandwich is Safe: The Joe Biden Presidency

Post by Mo »

Pham Nuwen wrote:I just watched 4 years of a senate that had to include their cross party brethren in most matters for fear of organized filibusters of important bills. Earmarks are gone and I don't see how the back room deals end just because there is no filibuster.
The only thing that passed, aside from a basically unanimous covid bill, was a tax cut that passed via reconciliation and therefore was purely partisan. And the last 2 years had to have D approval because of the House, not the filibuster. Congress was so cucked by the presidency that they couldn’t even stop Trump from spending money that had had never been appropriated. Though in fairness, SCOTUS rolled over in a way that they never would have if Obama pulled the same move.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex
User avatar
Pham Nuwen
Posts: 9406
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 02:17

Re: No Sandwich is Safe: The Joe Biden Presidency

Post by Pham Nuwen »

Mo wrote: 26 Jan 2021, 09:48
Pham Nuwen wrote:I just watched 4 years of a senate that had to include their cross party brethren in most matters for fear of organized filibusters of important bills. Earmarks are gone and I don't see how the back room deals end just because there is no filibuster.
The only thing that passed, aside from a basically unanimous covid bill, was a tax cut that passed via reconciliation and therefore was purely partisan. And the last 2 years had to have D approval because of the House, not the filibuster. Congress was so cucked by the presidency that they couldn’t even stop Trump from spending money that had had never been appropriated. Though in fairness, SCOTUS rolled over in a way that they never would have if Obama pulled the same move.
That's a good point honestly. I need to think about this more. I'm not there yet, Mo. Sorry.
Goddamn libertarian message board. Hugh Akston

leave me to my mescaline smoothie in peace, please. dhex
User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 21248
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: No Sandwich is Safe: The Joe Biden Presidency

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

I can argue either side of the point. We don't know what would actually result from removal of the filibuster. It's possible we'd have wild see-saw swings in legislation every time one party controlled both houses of Congress. It's also possible that the public would be even more angered by Congress if that happened than it already is. It's almost certainly the case that neither congressmen nor senators could faux-vote in favor of legislation sure not to pass and it's at least arguably possible that because legislation was more likely to pass than before, there was more incentive for bipartisanship. It's also arguably the case that each senator's vote would become somewhat less important absent the filibuster rule and that the disproportionate political power states with smaller populations now wield would accordingly be diminished.

There's certainly a real question whether any or all of that would be a good thing. OTOH, what we've seen is that Congress's inability or refusal to assert its full Article I authority against the Executive Branch has permitted the sort of presidential shenanigans of which Trump's is only the most recent and most egregious.

The Supreme Court is a passive branch of government. It can't reach out and settle disputes that are not brought before it by litigants with skin in the game. (This, btw, is why such arguably unconstitutional acts of Congress such as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 have never been challenged; neither side want's a definite answer.) So the question sort of boils down whether we want Congress to be a genuine check on presidential overreach or, phrased differently, whether we want to be ruled by 435 weasels or by one weasel.
Post Reply