Arizona in 2024

Until Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) announces her future plans—which could take quite a while—we will be left speculating about the meaning of her newfound independence. In the short run, it doesn't mean much. She has said she will keep her committee positions. That's not actually for her to say; she has no control over that. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) controls the committee positions for Democrats. The fact that she said she would keep her current positions (Homeland Security, Banking, Commerce, and Veterans' Affairs) means that she and Schumer have already made a deal. In effect, she is now no different than Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Angus King (I-ME). Nothing really changes here.

The $64,000 question is: What about 2024? She can't run as a Democrat, but she could file to run in the general election as an independent. She would need to get 40,000+ signatures to do that. If she tried, Republican voters would be trampling all over each other to get to the petition first to sign up in hopes of splitting the Democratic vote. She could get those signatures in a flash. So if she wants to be on the ballot as an independent, she could easily. But what happens then?

We see two plausible scenarios and one implausible one, none of which she has any control over. First the implausible one, to get it out of the way. The Democratic leadership could tell Democrats not to file to run, thus giving her a clear shot at being reelected as an independent. This is the way it plays out in Vermont and Maine. That would never work in Arizona, though, because Sanders and King are immensely popular with Democrats in their respective states. Almost every high-profile Democrat there wants to see them reelected and won't do anything to interfere with that. That won't work for Sinema because Arizona Democrats despise her. They want to see her defeated. It is virtually certain that at least one high-profile Democrat would enter the Senate race, even if national Democrats warned against it. Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), who represents most of Phoenix in the House, is champing at the bit, teasing an announcement. There is no way for the DSCC to stop him, either, if he wants to run. They could threaten to withhold funding, but Gallego is popular enough to raise tens of millions of dollars on his own, after which the DSCC would probably give in and help him. He is undoubtedly now in discussions with state and national Democratic officials, donors, pollsters, and consultants about a run. If the pollsters tell him he would win, it will be hard for party leaders to stop him.

Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ), the former mayor of Phoenix and current congressman, is also a potential candidate. As chance would have it, he is now sitting in the House seat Sinema vacated in 2018 when she ran for the Senate. He is not as aggressive as Gallego about teasing a run, but he could well jump in. Our conclusion is that Arizona is not Vermont or Maine. It's bigger and sunnier and the Democrats there hate their senior senator. They are not going to leave the Democratic line on the Senate ballot blank.

The first plausible scenario is that Gov. Doug Ducey (R-AZ) runs for the GOP nomination for the Senate and wins it. If so, every Republican in the state will vote for him. The Democratic vote is likely to be split and the popular soon-to-be-former governor would probably win. If Ducey decides not to run (because Donald Trump will do everything in his power to defeat him), another potential mainsteam candidate is Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb. In a three-way race with Lamb, Sinema, and Gallego/Stanton, Lamb would probably win.

The second plausible scenario is the Kari Lake runs for the GOP nomination (potentially against Ducey in the primary) and with Donald Trump's help, wins the nomination. Now the three-way race would be Lake, Sinema, and some Democrat, probably, Gallego or Stanton. This is a whole different kettle of fish because many Republicans despise Lake but don't want to vote for a Democrat. Sinema would give them an alternative. In this combination, we would expect Sinema to pull in more Republican votes than Democratic votes, making a victory for the Democrat quite plausible. A variant on this theme is that billionaire Peter Thiel decides to p*ss away another $15 million and gets Blake Masters to run for the GOP Senate nomination (again) and he wins.

So, if a mainstream Republican runs in a three-way race, he or she would probably win but if the Republicans nominate a loony, the Democrat could win due to sane Republican voters opting for Sinema instead of the loony. Ranked choice voting would be a real plus here, but Democrats are three seats short in the state Senate and Republicans don't want it.

The order of events could matter. If Gallego gets in first, Sinema, Ducey, Lamb, Stanton, Masters, and Lake will no doubt be observing the reaction (especially fundraising) very closely. That could affect their own decisions one way or another. If Gallego raises a mini-fortune on Day 1, some of the others might take that as an omen and decide against a run.

Other factors could also play a role. The leading progressive digital firm, Authentic, has now dropped Sinema as a client, even though she has paid them over $700,000 since 2020. Suppose she has trouble finding a replacement. Suppose big donors say "Good-bye!" because they don't think she can win. All kinds of stuff could happen that she has to factor in.

Of course, we don't yet know the plans of any of the actors named above. We think it more likely than not that Gallego is in. He keeps teasing a run, and even fundraising for a run. He wouldn't do that unless he were seriously considering it. He just won reelection with 75% of the vote in the state's biggest city. He well understands that is a pretty good indication he'd be a strong candidate, as a Marine Corps veteran in a state full of veterans and a Latino in a state full of Latinos. Stanton knows this very well, but as a former mayor of Phoenix, he is also well known. Of course, he also knows that Gallego is almost certainly in and could raise a lot of money fast, so it would be an expensive Democratic primary. But, remember, in politics a week is long time and we have months to go. Stuff can change quickly.

As an aside, we will now drop the Sen. Krysten Sinema (D-AZ) notation since she is that no more. Chris Weigant observed that since she is now an Independent Senator, maybe Sen. Krysten Sinema (IS-AZ) would be better. But on second thought, that doesn't seem right at all. Also using two characters for the party violates the convention, but maybe there is a way to combine "I" and "S" into one symbol. He humbly suggested Sen. Krysten Sinema ($-AZ), which perhaps sums up the situation adequately.

Sinema is not the first senator to change party registration while in the Senate. Since 1950, nine other senators have jumped ship, as follows:

Senator	State	Switch	Year	Next election	Result
Kyrsten Sinema	Arizona	D to I	2022	2024	?
Arlen Specter	Pennsylvania	R to D	2009	2010	Lost primary
Joe Lieberman	Connecticut	D to I	2006	2006	Reelected
Jim Jeffords	Vermont	R to I	2001	2006	Retired
Bob Smith	New Hampshire	I to R	1999	2002	Lost primary
Bob Smith	New Hampshire	R to I	1999	2002	Lost primary
Ben Nighthorse Campbell	Colorado	D to R	1995	1998	Reelected
Richard Shelby	Alabama	D to R	1994	1998	Reelected
Harry Byrd Jr.	Virginia	D to I	1970	1970	Reelected
Strom Thurmond	South Carolina	D to R	1964	1966	Reelected
Wayne Morse	Oregon	I to D	1955	1956	Reelected
Wayne Morse	Oregon	R to I	1952	1956	Reelected

Six of the nine were reelected after switching, but that is hardly a prediction in Sinema's case. In fact, she could surprise everyone again by not running for reelection in 2024. One possible career path is for her to become a lobbyist, although that seems unlikely. A lobbyist has power when he or she can cajole former colleagues into doing something to help a client. Once Sinema is out of the Senate, no Democrat will give her the time of day, let alone do favors for her clients. More likely is a highly paid gig on Fox. Maybe she and Tulsi Gabbard could have show called The Democrat Hour, featuring all the usual Republican talking points but from former Democrats. Organizing an independent run for the Senate takes a lot of time and money, so Sinema probably has to make a decision within a few months. One thing she almost certainly will not do is quit the Senate abruptly sometime next year because then Gov. Katie Hobbs (D-AZ) would appoint an actual Democrat to her seat and Sinema clearly does not want that. (V)

The Trump Organization Conviction Is Going to Have Fallout

Last week, the Trump Organization was found guilty on 17 counts of tax fraud. The fine will be only $1.6 million, petty cash to Trump, but the fallout could be immense.

First, in other jurisdictions, prosecutors could realize that bringing cases against the Trump Organization or even Trump himself is not a fool's errand. More cases could pop up all over the place. They could be civil cases from people who were duped by Trump somehow, or criminal cases by ambitious D.A.'s who see gold in nailing Trump. Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis probably sees this as a sign from heaven that she should indict him, and there could be others in states where Trump has properties and has dodged taxes.

Second, while prosecutors in other cases will probably be forbidden from introducing Trump's convictions as formal evidence at subsequent trials. Most of the jurors are likely to know about these convictions. That could certainly influence their votes. In the secrecy of the jury's deliberation room, somebody might just say: "We know he committed 17 other crimes. Does anyone really believe they were the only ones? He's clearly a crook."

Third, other companies won't want to deal with him now that the company has been convicted. Former New York State prosecutor Ben Gershman said: "The consequences could potentially be devastating for the company. The Trump Organization is now toxic. Nobody wants to touch them." Specifically, no respectable bank will lend the company money, no insurance company will issue it a policy, and landing government contracts may be close to impossible. How will he do business now? Borrow money from the Mafia at 20% annual interest? Is that a workable business deal? Maybe the Saudi Arabian government will work with Trump, but they also have to consider how Joe Biden might react to that, and they need Biden more than he needs them.

Fourth, most of Trump's new projects consist of licensing his brand rather than construction. Who wants to build Trump Tower Boise or Trump Tower Anywhere, given how toxic he is? Again, maybe he can do some projects in countries with corrupt dictators, but what does Trump Tower Pyongyang do for his brand's image?

Fifth, these convictions make it more likely that Trump will try to make a plea deal with NY AG Letitia James to avoid yet another batch of very public convictions. But she is in the driver's seat here and is certainly not going to settle for a $2 million fine and let it go at that. She could require a massive fine and an agreement to stop doing all business in New York State for 5 years or more. (V)

Howard Dean: I Support the New Primary Schedule

The Democrats have decided to try to change their primary calendar to put South Carolina first, New Hampshire and Nevada together 3 days later, and then Georgia and Michigan in subsequent weeks. They may or may not get their wish because Republican-controlled state legislatures in South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Georgia could refuse to play ball and the incoming governor of Nevada, Joe Lombardo (R), could veto any change in the primary date.

That said, even many Democrats don't like the plan because it puts three states spread all over the country—South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Nevada—in play within 3 days. This could prove fatal to an insurgent with no money and no name recognition. Consequently, it is noteworthy that Howard Dean, who was Bernie before Bernie was Bernie, and ran an insurgent campaign in 2004, has now written an op-ed for Politico stating that he supports the new calendar. He knows everything there is to know about running a shoestring campaign in opposition to the DNC's preferred candidate. In the end, he lost, but he still understands the process very well. He says the advantages of a more diverse primary electorate up front outweigh any disadvantages. He also says that the ability of candidates who can attract a more diverse group of voters ultimately strengthens the Party. In addition, he notes that as a former chair of the DNC, he understands the inside baseball like no other, and says this is the best possible result the DNC could get. Note the use of "possible." He understands the tradeoffs and compromises that have to be made within the DNC and also understands that the "perfect" is the enemy of the "good."

Dean doesn't get into the details, but we can imagine that some candidates (especially Black ones) would focus entirely on South Carolina, where more than half the Democratic primary electorate is Black. A win there would make the winner a serious contender, no matter what happened the week after. Other candidates might focus entirely on Nevada and not campaign at all in South Carolina. When they finished ninth in South Carolina, they would tell reporters: "I didn't appear once in the state and didn't spend one dollar on ads. What did you expect? But I am going to clean up big time in Nevada on Tuesday." Any candidate who flunked South Carolina but aced Nevada would be a serious contender later in Georgia and Michigan. If candidate X won South Carolina and Y won Nevada, the media might settle on the story: "It's X vs. Y" and stop following the other candidates. That would winnow the field as effectively as Iowa and New Hampshire do now. Of course, if the other candidates kept going and Georgia had a third winner and Michigan a fourth one, all bets are off. However, note that Augusta, the second largest city in Georgia, is right across the Savannah River from South Carolina and its northern suburbs are actually in South Carolina. Consequently many Georgians will be hearing about the South Carolina primary and seeing the ads for it constantly. A rally held in Spiderweb, SC, is a twofer, since it is only 10 miles from downtown Augusta. Candidates who campaign vigorously in western South Carolina will have a leg up in Georgia just due to proximity. Candidates who focus entirely on Nevada won't.

It is doubtful that any candidate will bother with New Hampshire, doubly so if it holds an unsanctioned primary before South Carolina and the DNC has ruled that New Hampshire will get no delegates at the convention for violating its rules and candidates who campaign there will not be allowed on stage for the official debates. (V)

The Budget: A Game of Chicken

Federal agencies will run out of money on Friday. Democrats want to pass a budget bill to fund the government for another year this week and increase spending to counteract inflation. Republicans want to pass a bill to fund it for another month so that the issue will have to come up again in January, when Republicans will control the House and have more leverage than they do now. If the two sides can't agree on a bill, there will be a government shutdown just before Christmas, the ultimate game of Chicken. Nobody really wants that, but both sides want to get their way here. A "compromise" in the form of a 6-month bill helps the Republicans because they will also control the House in June, when it runs out. Democrats want to get this done for a year before the Republicans take over the House.

A big stumbling block is discretionary (i.e., not mandatory) nondefense spending. Much of this goes to numerous social programs that the Democrats support and Republicans oppose. The parties agree on spending for defense and veterans' care, so that is not a bone of contention. One issue where there is a huge gap between the parties is the $80 billion for the IRS that was appropriated in earlier bills this year. The Republicans very strongly want to repeal it. They know that the IRS is not going to spend money going after a bus driver. all of whose income in subject to withholding. But for a billionaire who has companies headquartered in Panama, Lichtenstein, and the Cayman Islands, well, that is different story. Many of those people donate big time to the Republicans and expect some return on investment there—for example, crippling the IRS.

One potential way out would be a deal to pass a bill that continues spending for a year at the current levels except for the military and veterans. De facto, this would cut domestic spending by about 10% due to inflation. Republicans might accept that but Democrats really don't want it.

Senate Appropriations Chair Pat Leahy (D-VT) and House Appropriations Chair Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) are working on a new bill to be released today. They hope it will win Republican support. Leahy said that it will fund the military at the level the Republicans want and also increase domestic spending somewhat. He hopes he can get 10 Republican votes in the Senate to invoke cloture and prevent shutting the government down. Republicans dismissed the idea out of hand. Departing Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) said "It's already failed before it starts."

This kind of impasse has happened many times in the past. Sometimes a deal is worked out at the last minute. Sometimes not, and the government shuts down. A lot depends on who the players perceive as getting the blame. If Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) thinks the Republicans will get the blame, he might quietly ask 10 Republican senators to vote for cloture but then vote against the bill itself to cover their behinds. Then it would pass the House on a party line vote and pass the Senate 51 to 50. But if McConnell thinks Joe Biden will get the blame, he might just let the government go dark for Christmas. That is how Chicken is played. (V)

Brittney Griner Joins the Culture Wars

Sooner or later, it seems, everything becomes part of the culture wars. So is it with the release of basketball player Brittney Griner, who was imprisoned in Russia for 10 months for taking a small amount of marijuana oil with her when she entered Russia. What could have been a moment for Americans to celebrate—the release of an American citizen held on minor charges in a grim Russian penal colony—just added more fuel to the ongoing culture wars. Incoming House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said: "President Biden gets it done." Current House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said the trade of Griner for arms merchant Viktor Bout "was a gift to Putin."

If you want to get a better idea of what Bout does for a living and why Putin wants him back in the saddle, read this story in Politico. It might change your mind on whether the trade was a good idea. The story is grisly. You have been warned.

So far, it is a legitimate point. Is trading a basketball player for "the merchant of death" who has armed terrorists that killed Americans (and who may continue to do so in the future) a good deal? In chess, is sacrificing the queen to capture a pawn a good trade-off? In both cases, generally no. But politically for Joe Biden, not helping a Black lesbian who was also a pawn could hurt him politically with Black, lesbian, and liberal voters, so he did it. But the story doesn't end there.

As soon as Griner arrived at a San Antonio military hospital for evaluation and treatment, the right-wing echo chamber exploded. The charge leveled at Biden is that he traded Bout for the wrong person. Another American held captive on Russia is Paul Whelan, a former Marine who was convicted in a Russian court of espionage. No one outside the CIA knows if he really is a spy and the CIA isn't talking. But the right-wing outrage machine is screaming that Biden chose to free a (useless) Black lesbian who is married to a woman over a white man and veteran who defended his country because, well, Biden values Black lesbians over straight white men and military heroes. Needless to say, this gets the blood of Tucker Carlson's viewers boiling, which is the whole point of his show. Donald Trump Jr. added that the Biden administration "was apparently worried that their DEI score would go down if they freed an American Marine" (DEI is an acronym for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, something many companies strive for).

What Carlson, Trump, and others didn't bother to mention is that Whelan is no innocent angel. While in the Marine Corps, he was court martialed for larceny, convicted, and drummed out of the Corps with a bad conduct discharge. He may well have broken Russian laws and was caught at it, so he was tried, convicted, and imprisoned.

Further, Biden did try to get Whelan out as part of the deal or even instead of Griner, but Vladimir Putin said no. It was Griner for Bout or no deal at all. Biden took what he could get. Putin wanted Bout back but was not willing to give up Whelan to get him back. The reason Putin wanted Bout back is that Bout had close ties with the GRU (Russian military intelligence) and Putin assumed the CIA would torture him to extract what it could about the GRU from him. After all, if the shoe were on the other foot, that is what he would do. From all reports, Bout wasn't tortured and didn't give up much information. He just sat quietly in prison for more than a decade with his mouth shut. That is something Putin admires and probably felt was worth rewarding, especially since it didn't cost him anything.

Part of the reason Putin didn't release Whelan as part of the deal is that he has something else in mind. He is open to trading Whelan for a colonel in the FSB, Vadim Krasikov, who is currently serving a life sentence in Germany for assassinating someone in broad daylight in Berlin in 2019. A combo deal didn't work out because the Germans didn't want to spring someone they consider to be a terrorist. Nevertheless, discussions with Germany are ongoing and it is conceivable Biden might be able to work something out with Chancellor Olaf Scholz. For example, Germany has a serious energy problem due to the cutoff of supplies from Russia and some number of boatloads of liquified natural gas might soften Scholz' heart on the Krasikov matter.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) went on CBS' Face the Nation yesterday and said that Putin intentionally told Biden that it's Griner or nothing specifically to "roil the American body politic," knowing that it would result in yet another culture wars battle. If that is true, Putin knows what he is doing because it worked. (V)

Is Kari Lake Running for Vice President?

On Friday, Arizona gubernatorial-election loser Kari Lake sued Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, claiming that the election was rigged and she (Lake) actually won. She wants the judge to declare that she is the rightful winner, or failing that, to order a new election. There is not a shred of evidence that Lake won. Hobbs beat her by 17,117 votes. The margin was 0.67%, more than the 0.50% cutoff for an automatic recount. There were some problems with printers in Maricopa County initially, but they were resolved and every eligible voter got to vote in the end.

Maybe Lake is delusional and is so convinced that she was the better candidate that she must have won. But surely her lawyers told her that there is no chance she will win in court. Overcoming a gap of 17,117 votes just doesn't happen. So what is she up to?

One possibility is that she sees her next act as Donald Trump's running mate in 2024. By claiming he won in 2020 and was cheated and now claiming that she won in 2022 and was cheated, he is likely to see her as a kindred soul. If he decides he needs a woman on the ticket, there aren't a lot of good options for him. Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD) is already auditioning for the slot, but she isn't a 100% firebreathing election denier. She attended Joe Biden's inauguration, but when asked point blank if she still thinks Trump won in 2020, she is evasive. Typically she says things like "I think there's a lot of people who have doubts about that." What that statement does not say is whether Kristi Noem is one of the people who have doubts about who won. And it certainly is different from: "I have no doubt whatsoever: Donald Trump won in 2020."

The only other high-profile woman Trump might consider is former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. But Haley is probably too mainstream for his taste and she not an election denier. Besides, she has brown skin and is the daughter of immigrants, not characteristics his base laps up.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) would drive Democratic turnout through the roof, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) is nuttier than a fruit cake, and Sarah Palin has lost two elections in Alaska this year. The pickins' are slim, so Lake has to be considered a potential running mate for Trump. Her filing a pointless suit to overturn an election is going to make Trump think all the more of her. (V)

Latinos Are Not Deserting the Democrats

There have been many stories of late about how "Latinos are deserting the Democrats." For example, this one about how the Democrats lost Miami-Dade County in November. It turns out, on closer inspection that things are more complicated than that. Miami-Dade County is a special case because the Latinos there are largely Cubans who fled Fidel Castro, or the descendants of those Cubans. They are very conservative and can be convinced to vote against the "socialist Democrats" fairly easily.

But in the Southwest, it is quite different. Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico all have very large Latino populations. Arizona is 31% Latino, Nevada is 29% Latino, and New Mexico is 49% Latino. Together they have six U.S. senators. All of them are Democrats. Two of the three incoming governors are Democrats. All three secretaries of state will be Democrats. Two of the states will have a Democratic attorney general for certain and in the third one (Arizona), a Democrat is leading but there will be a recount. the U.S. House delegations are 3D, 6R in Arizona, 3D, 0R in New Mexico, and 3D, 1R in Nevada for a total of 9D, 7R. Democrats control both chambers of the state legislature in New Mexico and Nevada. In Arizona, the new state Senate is 13D, 17R and the new state House is 29D, 31R. The Latinos definitely have not tipped these Latino-heavy states to the Republicans. In Colorado, which also has many Latinos (22%) but is not usually counted as Southwest, both senators and the governor, as well all the other statewide officers, are Democrats. Democrats have majorities in the U.S. House delegation and in both chambers of the state legislature.

In other words, the Latino vote is not monolithic and varies from region to region. In Florida, they are Republicans. In the Southwest they vote Democratic. (V)

No to Joe and Don

A new Hart Research/Public Opinion Strategies poll shows that 70% of Americans, including 57% of Democrats and 86% of Republicans, do not want Joe Biden to run for another term as president. However, 61% of Americans, including 88% of Democrats and 37% of Republicans, do not want Donald Trump to run for another term, either. But there is an decent chance that it will end up Biden vs. Trump again, despite hardly anyone wanting that. What's wrong with this picture? Or maybe: What's wrong with our system?

Biden has a lot working against him. He just celebrated his 80th birthday last month (Happy birthday, Joe!) and if he won in 2024, would be the oldest person ever to be elected president, although Trump (who will be 78 in Nov. 2024) would also break the record. In addition, with inflation raging, only 14% of the respondents said the economy is good or excellent. The survey also asked what the country's top priority should be, and 87% said it should be tackling inflation. However, note that this is now. In Nov. 2024, inflation is likely to be much lower due to the Fed's aggressive policy of raising interest rates. So inflation may not be the biggest issue in 2024. It might not even be the economy, although if the country is in a recession then, it could be unemployment.

For Democrats, the #2 issue after inflation is protecting the right to an abortion. For Republicans, it is reducing spending and the deficit.

The breakdown of respondents by partisanship was 42% voted for Biden and 41% voted for Trump, with the others voting for minor candidates or not voting. So it is probably a good sample.

Since it is also the holiday season (and the poll sponsor was CNBC), there was also a question about holiday gift shopping. Slightly more than half of all respondents (51%) plan to do most of their shopping online, another 21% plan to buy things in big box chain stores, and 16% plan on doing it in local stores. The rest are scattered over multiple categories.

For what it's worth, another financial question was about investments. Some 29% have over $50,000 in investments, 22% have less than $50,000 in stocks, 42% have no investments, and the rest aren't sure or refused to answer. (V)

Originalism Is Dying

For the past 50 years, many conservative Supreme Court justices have adhered to a theory they call "originalism," which means that the Constitution now means exactly what it meant in the 18th century and that the actual words in the document are what matter, not some modern reinterpretation (except that the word "arms" in the Second Amendment seems to apply to modern AR-15s, not just 18th-century muzzle-loading muskets, which is what the founders meant). But a new idea has arisen that is starting to challenge that view. It is called "common good constitutionalism." It is not widely known yet, but it has captured the attention of many young conservative lawyers, some of whom are likely to be appointed to the federal judiciary by the next Republican president.

The best-known proponent of this theory, Harvard Law professor Adrian Vermeule, wrote an incendiary article in The Atlantic in March followed by a book on the subject. Both have attracted a huge amount of attention in conservative legal circles. In short, Vermeule thinks that the job of the government is promote the common good according to natural law. Written documents, such as the Constitution, play only a minor role in this theory. Individual rights laid out in those documents play an even smaller role.

Of course, a big question is: "What is the common good?" Is it better for women to be allowed to have paid employment or better for all of them to be mothers and housewives? According to whom? Vermeule's natural law principles tend to align well with the Catholic Church's. In practice, many adherents to common good constitutionalism are religious conservatives who believe natural law dictates their positions and that overrides the written Constitution.

One practical area where this new kid on the block differs from originalism is in the role of the Executive Branch. The founders clearly believed that the Legislative Branch—Congress—was really the major player since it got to pass laws, control taxes and spending, and declare war. The Executive Branch's job was merely to see that all of Congress' laws got enforced and the money it appropriated got spent as it had dictated. The same holds at the state level, where the Supreme Court is busy turning everything over to the state legislatures.

Common good constitutionalism supports a strong Executive who can do what is "right," without that pesky Constitution or other laws getting in the way. Many adherents of this theory believe the president has the power to ban same-sex marriage, abortion, and pornography, but also protect the natural environment, the laws be damned. They also believe in a more muscular judiciary, one that does what is "right," no matter what printed laws say. Critics say that it is just right-wing authoritarianism dressed up in a Roman toga.

This new theory is hot. Mario Fiandeiro, the editor-in-chief of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, says the debate between originalism and the common good constitutionalism is the debate raging on the legal right now. We are going to hear more about the battle in the future. (V)

A December to Rhymember, Part VI: Putting the "Sin" in "Sinema"

Kyrsten Sinema's not-so-surprising surprise announcement came too late in the week to be recognized in verse. But there's time now. The first reader to submit something on the subject was N.S. in North Hollywood, CA:

There's a self-serving senator, Kyrsten
To hold onto her power, she's thirstin'
When she observes paths
To screw Democrats
She makes sure she's one of the first in

However, N.S. learned that day that this limerick is built around an incorrect pronunciation of the Senator's name, and so sent in this update:

There's something I'd like to announce
I failed to correctly pronounce
I, in my rush to be first in,
Said, "senator, [KURR-sten]"
KEER-sten's who I meant to denounce

Here is the assessment of J.E. in Boone, NC:

With Raphael Warnock elected
And the Running Back Walker rejected
The Democrats' win despite Sinema's sin
Will not be so highly affected

And to wrap it up, P.L. in Morelia, Mexico.:

Ex-Democrat Senator Sinema
Just fed her ex-party some venom-a.
Perhaps, it's a pity;
Perhaps, even shi**y.
But I'm still trying to not rhyme with enema.

We'll see what tomorrow brings; here is the e-mail address for submissions. (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger