Dem
51
GOP
49
Today's entry is a little on the short side; sorry about that. Oh, and on the subject of this week's headline theme, we'll tell you that as far as we know, the most recent show to qualify is Yellowstone (twice). As an alternative hint, the key to Cheers qualifying for the theme is the character Frasier Crane.
P.F. in Fairbanks, AK, asks: Is it possible for the Republicans to impeach Joe Biden while they're in control of the House right now, then anticipate taking control of the Senate in November and hold the trial after they've taken the majority?
(V) & (Z) answer: Yes, that is possible, as articles of impeachment do not expire when the Congress that passed them does. For example, the Bill Clinton articles of impeachment were passed by the 105th House, but tried by the 106th Senate.
The benefits to doing this, however, would be somewhat minimal. Since articles of impeachment are a privileged matter, the Senate must take them up, regardless of which party is in control. And since it takes two-thirds to convict, Biden would be acquitted by a 51 R, 49 D Senate just as readily as he would by a 51 D, 49 R Senate. So, the only difference would be that a Republican-controlled Senate might be able to squeeze a little extra theater out of the whole thing.
A.S. in Calgary, AB, Canada, asks: Suppose that the Supreme Court decides to rule in Trump's favor, that whatever he did while acting in an official capacity cannot be held against him in a court of law.
Wouldn't that just mean that Joe Biden could then order the army, or whomever was willing to follow such an order, to seize Trump, throw him into prison without a trial, and keep him at least until the next president let him out? Without consequences?(V) & (Z) answer: That is the clear implication of such a ruling, especially since any president (Biden or otherwise) would make very sure to couch such an act in official terms ("In view of my responsibility for keeping the U.S. secure, I am forced to order the arrest and imprisonment of Donald Trump.").
This is why we think it will be impossible for the Supreme Court to sustain Trump's immunity argument. It just opens too many cans of worms, especially for a president like... Donald Trump.
L.T. in Buffalo, NY, asks: The Supreme Court recently announced they were taking up a case about access to mifepristone. My assumption is that access to this drug will be severely limited as a result, which feels like yet another step toward completely erasing women's reproductive rights nationally. Even though I'm fortunate enough to live in a very blue state, I'm afraid of watching my rights to a safe abortion, permanent sterilization, and birth control disappear little by little until they're functionally nonexistent. I'm not saying that this will happen, but recent trends make it seem like a real possibility. I don't have enough knowledge of politics (I've only been following politics and this site for a couple of years) or history to have any idea what the long-term effects are going to be from the 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court. I would greatly value the input from (V) and (Z) and from the readers of this site.
I'm a 28-year-old woman who is on the fence about having kids. Over the last 5 years, I've slowly gone from wanting two kids, to wanting one, to debating if I want any at all. This progression has stemmed from becoming more informed about the risks of pregnancy and the pros and cons of parenthood, as well as getting to know myself and what I want out of life better. I'm currently thinking about getting sterilized and potentially adopting a child if I decide I want to be a parent later in life, but it's entirely possible that I'll want a biological child. I would prefer not to get sterilized in order to keep this option open without having to pay for IVF. However, I'm afraid that if I decide to remain childfree, my right to an abortion and/or permanent sterilization will be gone by the time I make that decision. I can also envision a situation where the Supreme Court takes up a case regarding sterilization, and I end up competing with others to get the procedure done before it's potentially outlawed (and possibly not being able to get it in time). I likely won't hit menopause for another 12-17 years, and all forms of hormonal or barrier-type birth control have a risk of failure. I will NOT allow anyone to force me to continue a pregnancy I do not want. I would rather get sterilized now than face that situation.
For anyone who may suggest giving an unwanted baby up for adoption, I am as apprehensive about pregnancy as I am about parenthood. The pregnancy and childbirth statistics in the U..S are terrifying, and I personally know someone who nearly died giving birth and was in a coma for several days afterward. For those who may suggest moving out of the U.S., I have enough reasons to stay in the country (at least for now) that moving is out of the question.
My question is this: How likely is it that I will lose my rights to an abortion, permanent sterilization, and/or birth control in my blue state in the next 15 years, and how soon might that happen? Should I get sterilized now and accept adoption/IVF as my choices for having kids, wait until the Supreme Court announces their decision on the mifepristone case, or wait even longer than that?(V) & (Z) answer: We understand your concerns but, in our view, as a blue-state resident, you need not be concerned.
To start, the anti-choice crowd doesn't actually have a lot of power to go much further than they already have, at least outside of red states. A national abortion ban, for example, is not passable absent a Republican trifecta and the abolition of the filibuster. And even then, many GOP members will be leery, knowing the backlash they will face. Even if the Republicans do pull it off, it will surely produce a Democratic trifecta at the next presidential election, and in a world where the filibuster is gone. Guess what the Democrats will do roughly 2 seconds after they retake power?
The Supreme Court is another possible venue, but there are big challenges for the anti-choice folks. For example, the current mifepristone case is narrowly tailored to only some aspects of mifespristone availability (basically, whether it's OK to dispense across state lines, and with a non-in-person consultation). Even if it succeeds, Democrats have ways to potentially nullify the ruling (by having the FDA go through various parts of the approval process again). And, of course, the drug will still be available in blue states, while alternatives to mifepristone, like misoprostol, will also remain available.
On top of that Roe was decided on somewhat shaky legal grounds. One of these days, the Supreme Court is going to end up with a right-to-abortion case that operates on much stronger legal grounds (for example, the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause). SCOTUS could well rule against abortion rights for a second time, but to do so they would be taking a risk of a backlash that leads to their wings (robes?) being clipped aggressively. Some of the conservatives don't care about that, but Chief Justice John Roberts does, and maybe one or two of the other conservatives, too.
Then there is the issue of federalism. The federal government has no real way to enforce its laws nationwide; it relies on help from the states. If the states rebel, there isn't a whole lot that the feds can do. It's not a great parallel, but note that, for example, marijuana is still illegal under federal law. And yet, blue states (and some red states) ignore that fact every day. If a federal abortion ban were to be imposed, blue-state politicians would react so rapidly as to make your head spin. They'll start by trying to work within the system; say by filing a lawsuit with one of the liberal federal circuits (probably the Ninth), and getting an injunction. If working within the system doesn't succeed, then expect extralegal flouting of federal law, in one way or another. And, of course, there is always Canada, which would surely respond by trying to help as many American women as is possible.
And as to sterilization, that's a bridge that we haven't really seen the anti-choice folks even try to cross. How they could justify a national ban on that, and how they would attempt to distinguish between medically necessary sterilizations (say, because of cancer) and those undertaken for birth-control purposes... well, those are very tough questions to answer.
We can certainly understand your concerns, but our sense is that the anti-choice movement is at or near its high-water mark right now, and that future encroachments on reproductive rights will be tough to secure, particularly in a manner that is actually effective. We will, of course, run letters tomorrow from readers who have more to add and/or who disagree with us.
R.B. in Cleveland, OH, asks: The recent abortion case out of Texas is heartbreaking and infuriating all at once. Could Kate Cox, or anyone else in a similar situation, make a case that being legally forced to carry a non-viable pregnancy constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and violates their constitutional rights under the Eighth amendment?
(V) & (Z) answer: This argument is out there, but we don't think it's one of the stronger ones, as the Eighth Amendment clearly refers to people who have been convicted of a crime. We're not legal scholars, but we tend to think arguments rooted in the Fourth, Fourteenth and even Thirteenth Amendment are stronger.
R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: I am not surprised that Elon Musk appeared at an X Spaces event promoting Alex Jones and Vivek Ramaswamy. I think Musk is one of the looniest public figures of all in the U.S. currently. Recently, he has also promoted the conspiracy theory that Jews are encouraging hatred against whites and are bringing non-white immigrants into the country as replacements. It is the kind of stuff pushed by the people who participated in the 2017 far-right Charlottesville, VA, event.
However, Musk did not always act like this. In the past decade, he endorsed Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for president. I vividly remember Obama appearing with Musk at public events to promote his administration's investments in electric vehicles as a way to rebuild the economy in the aftermath of the recession. I could not picture that happening now. Today, Musk is popular with the far-right and he seems eager to antagonize people with toxic behavior.
How and why did Musk evolve from an Obama supporter to a far-right icon in only a few years? Something must have happened to him to have caused such a dramatic change.(V) & (Z) answer: We have no good answer for you, and it's possible there will never be a good answer. That said, we can think of three possibilities. The first is that Musk's public image, for his first 40-50 years, was crafted to promote his business interests. Then, once Tesla was well established and his net worth was north of $150 billion, there was no need for that and the real Musk showed his true colors.
The second is that this has been the same Musk all along, and that seemingly contradictory actions are actually expressions of the same impulse. For example, perhaps he really likes to be close to the loci of power. When Barack Obama was ascendant, he kissed up to Obama. When Donald Trump appeared ascendant, he kissed up to Trump. A second possibility under this general umbrella is that Musk fancies himself an iconoclast, and he takes pleasure in doing the unexpected, whether it's a white South African who grew up under apartheid making nice with a Black man, or embracing looney tunes conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists.
The third possibility is that something has gone wrong with Musk, either mentally or emotionally or both. For what it's worth, this is the answer favored by Walter Isaacson, who literally wrote the book on Musk. Isaacson thinks that, due to a history of childhood abuse, Musk has PTSD, and that the PTSD is now manifesting itself in destructive ways.
G.B.M. in Laurence Harbor, NJ, asks: I recall your posts about the scheduling of an election to replace Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). What is the current status? When will Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) schedule an election?
(V) & (Z) answer: There is no current status, per se, because McCarthy hasn't officially vacated his seat yet. Up to the day his resignation takes effect (Dec. 31), he could theoretically change his mind and rescind. Newsom isn't going to do anything until there's an actual, official vacancy.
Once it does become official, the relevant California law actually gives Newsom two options. The first is to call a special primary between 126 and 140 days after the seat comes open, and then a special general election within 200 days of the seat coming open. That would mean a primary sometime in May, and the general sometime around July 15.
Alternatively, he can consolidate the special election with the regular election. In that case, it would mean a primary on March 5, and the general on November 5. We presume Newsom will choose this option, for the official reason that it saves money, and for the secret reason that it keeps the seat open longer.
H.F. in Pittsburgh, PA, asks: Will Vladimir Putin try to influence the 2024 U.S. elections as he did in 2016 (and did not in 2020)? Is the orange idiot still useful?
(V) & (Z) answer: We don't know why you believe Putin stayed out of the 2020 election. He certainly tried to get Trump reelected, albeit without success.
You can bet your last dollar that Putin and his cyber-soldiers will be back again. Trump is still useful to him and, beyond that, anything that destabilizes the U.S. democracy is good for Russia.
M.S. in Houston, TX, asks: After reading your item about what the Democratic legislative agenda might look like if they gained the federal trifecta, I sipped my coffee and imagined the top three Democrats sitting down together with their coffee with big smiles: Joe Biden, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and...? Who would likely be the new Speaker? Since she's still a member of Congress, and she plans to run for another term, do you think Pelosi could be coaxed into taking up the Speaker's gavel again? Because that would really be bringing in the big guns.
(V) & (Z) answer: If you are given an opportunity to bet on who the next Democratic speaker will be, and your choices are: (1) House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and (2) any one of the other 330 million people in the U.S., bet big on Jeffries. He already has the backing of his caucus, and he's in the job that is supposed to be the stepping stone to the speakership. Every single Democratic speaker since 1900 (a total of 12 of them) was the leader of the House Democrats first. The only way Jeffries does not become speaker is if: (1) he ends up in a scandal of some sort, (2) he gets voted out of office or otherwise leaves the House, (3) the Democrats are out of power for so long that he effectively ages out of being "next up."
There is zero chance it will be Pelosi. Even if that might have some appeal in the short term, given her considerable skill, the Democrats have to develop a new generation of leaders. That's not happening if the coffee klatsch is between three people who are all north of 70 (and, in two of three cases, north of 80).
M.D. in San Tan Valley, AZ, asks: Here in my neck of the desert, Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb is running to become the next United States Senator of Arizona. So, my question is simple. In our nation's history, how many state county sheriffs have made such a leap from county lawman in charge to being elected a U.S. Senator? U.S. Congressman? Governor? Presidential cabinet or staff member?
(V) & (Z) answer: There are examples of lawmen, including sheriffs, who have been able to get themselves elected to other local offices (city council, mayor). And there are examples of very high ranking politicians who had law enforcement service on their résumés, including Sheriff of Buffalo Grover Cleveland and Deputy Sheriff of Billings County Theodore Roosevelt. However, those men obviously put in the time and effort to climb the ladder, and did not go straight from sheriff to president.
As to people who DID go straight from sheriff (or any other law enforcement post) to a high political post, we don't know any and we can't find any. There may be a few, especially since the biographies of many 19th century politicians are sketchy. But there aren't many; it's mostly a modern phenomenon that people think that working as a news anchor or a sheriff or a Silicon Valley entrepreneur is all the experience you need to run for high office.
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: With the passing of Jimmy Carter anticipated soon, and given that he is now a widower, I was thinking about who will receive the American flag draped over his casket. Will it be his oldest child?
We had this scenario not too long ago with the passing of George H. W. Bush. Who got his flag?(V) & (Z) answer: The family decides who receives the flag. In the case of Bush, it was his daughter (and youngest child), Dorothy Bush Koch.
J.B. in Hutto, TX, asks: Because Washington D.C. is federal territory and not under the jurisdiction of any state, the President of the United States can pardon any crime committed within its borders, from jaywalking to murder. This being the case, if Donald Trump is returned to office in 2025, what is to stop him from playing the part of King Henry II, who famously "encouraged" some of his knights to murder the Archbishop of Canterbury by saying, "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?"
With Trump repeatedly attacking his political opponents in speeches and tweets, what happens when some radicalized MAGA-type murders an anti-Trump senator, congressman, judge, or Supreme Court justice and then Trump simply pardons them?(V) & (Z) answer: The answer here is unknowable, because the limits of the pardon power have never been addressed by the courts. However, if there was an obvious quid pro quo (murder my enemies, and I will make sure you are pardoned), the courts could well decide that is not acceptable.
Also, if Trump sits in Washington and de facto encourages a murder that takes place in, say, California, he and the murderer could be charged under California law, and a presidential pardon would be of no use.
J.C. in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, asks: If we have entered Spoils System 2.0, then how did we get out of 1.0?
(V) & (Z) answer: Americans concluded there was a problem, and over 30 or so years, made changes to fix the problem, including civil service reform, significant changes to the way elections were run, and some of the earliest rules about campaign finance.
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: You wrote about Adolf Hitler's three biggest mistakes during World War II. But even if he hadn't made these mistakes, I don't think there's a plausible scenario in which the Nazis could have won World War II. I mean, the combined military resources (both regarding equipment and the number of soldiers) of the U.S., the U.K. and the Soviet Union were far superior to the military ressources of Germany. And don't forget that the U.S. developed the nuclear bomb. What's your opinion? Is there a plausible scenario in which Hitler could have won World War II?
(V) & (Z) answer: It depends on what war Hitler decided to fight.
Clearly, if he had satisfied himself with annexing a few historically pan-Germanic nations, the future Allied Powers were clearly ready to let that go without complaint.
If Hitler had decided to also grab France, he might have made that stick, although it would have meant a long fight with the U.K. and the French Resistance.
However, invading Poland (which, of course, happened before the invasion of France), pretty much sealed Hitler's doom, particularly once he hit France, too. Taking even a part of Poland was too much a threat to the U.S.S.R., and adding France thereafter made him an unacceptable threat to the U.K., while the combo all-but-guaranteed that the U.S. would get involved, too. And even though the three major Allies had to deal with Japan, too, we agree with you that their combined might was more than the Nazis could withstand.
In short, if Hitler had seriously limited his territorial ambitions, then he could have won. But if he'd done that, he wouldn't be Hitler.
J.H. in Louisville, KY, asks: The intense anger of college campuses over the Israel-Hamas war has, I am sure, a number of causes. One common complaint form moderate Democrats and most Republicans is that a common refrain from progressive political thought is that the world can/should be reduced to viewing history and current events as a struggle between oppressed and oppressors with the oppressed deserving of our support regardless of our long-term alliances or common values. A criticism is that such thinking leaves no room for nuance in interpreting very complex conflicts (such as between Israelis and Palestinians where there has been generations of conflict, genuine security fears, and plenty of blame to go around).
A whole generation of students is being taught that the "oppressed" are always in the right regardless of what they actually do or do not do white the "oppressors" are always wrong no matter the reasons for what they do. As academics, do you have an opinion on whether this worldview is actually espoused in college education and, if so, if it is more helpful or hurtful in helping students to become more mature and critical thinkers?(V) & (Z) answer: There are probably some professors, in some departments, in some universities, who start with this model and then force every conflict to conform to the model. But they are not common, and neither of us has ever met such a person. (Z) had delivered thousands of lectures touching on at least a dozen wars (largely, the American ones), and has never come close to deploying that model. In fact, he is pretty sure he's never even used the word "oppressor" in a lecture, since it's so laden with judgment. (Z) is also familiar with the teaching of many dozens of colleagues, and has never seen any of them use that model either. He can't even figure out how it would work for most wars.
In general, when Republicans talk about what's going on in higher education, they just show they have no idea what they are talking about. And their habit—which is on display here—is to take a handful of extreme examples and to generalize those to the entire professoriate. We can assure you that professors don't even have a tiny fraction of the power to influence students' political opinions that the politicians imagine they do. And if a student does hear a lecture (or take a class) about how all wars are oppressor vs. oppressed, and that becomes the student's framework for thinking about things, that student was almost certainly strongly predisposed to that viewpoint, with the lecture (or class) just serving to crystallize things.
R.K. in Fort Myers, FL, asks: I am certain everyone agrees that limiting civilian casualties in any battle is a good thing. However, I was living in Kyiv when the Russians invaded. My apartment was a mile away from a Ministry of Defense compound that was attacked by sabotage squads. I had no expectation that I would be safe. The squads escaped down the street where I lived and left dead bodies as they went. My questions: (1) When did minimizing civilian casualties become a "thing" that is expected by the "world"?; (2) Is there any data or evidence that real armies fighting a battle do it in a way that minimizes civilian casualties?; (3) I recognize that military commanders could plan an attack to minimize, but actually doing it in real life when the other guy is shooting at you? Or is this all a modern creation that doesn't work in real time?
(V) & (Z) answer: Civilians became a significant part of war in the 1850s and 1860s, and the desire to limit civilian casualties where possible was first expressed in 1863, during the Civil War, in the Union's Lieber Code. This became the basis for the first Geneva Convention, adopted in 1864.
To a greater or lesser extent, civilians who end up in the thick of a pitched battle are on their own, and should not expect the soldiers to be mindful of their civilian status. Efforts to protect civilians tend to take other forms. Perhaps most obviously, armed forces operate under rules of engagement, which largely dictate when the use of deadly force can be initiated. If a battle hasn't started, then soldiers are expected to make damn sure that before they take a shot, they are shooting at enemy hostiles, and not at civilian innocents. In addition, and almost equally obvious, armed forces are expected to be very careful when choosing their targets for long-distance attacks (missiles, drones, etc.).
All of this said, we know the theory, but we also have many, many readers who have actual, real experience with this issue. We would very much like to run letters from some of them with their comments.
Here is the question we put before readers last week:
L.C. in Boston, MA, inspired by B.C. Walpole, ME, asks: What is the most popular program of study at the Electoral College?
And here some of the answers we got in response:
C.S. in Tucson, AZ: Study?! Surely you jest.
Popular majors include Kabuki theater, astrology, and the zen and metaphysics of Ouija boards.
C.L. in Washington, DC: I'm not sure I would choose the Electoral College for academics, I hear it's more of a party school...
D.S.A. in Parish, NY: Electoral Engineering, of course.
K.F.K. in Cle Elum, WA: Ornithological Neurosurgery.
C.S. in Newport, Wales, UK: Numeracy.
(Note that the course is nowadays more difficult than it was in 1789. You now have to count to 270.)
T.J. in West Orange, NJ: Voter Manipulation 101, taught by Professor G. Mander.
A.G. in Philadelphia, PA: How to Screw Over the Majority 101.
B.C. in Walpole, ME: 101: Introduction to the Electoral College (required of all first year students): How the vote is counted and the role of the Vice President
102: "This ain't a popularity contest": The Electoral Vote vs. The Popular Vote
D.S. in Albuquerque, NM: Having had my "popular" vote stolen away from me twice, in 2000 and 2016, I can only conclude that the most "popular" program of study in the Electoral College is: "How to Make Sure Republicans Always Have an Unfair Advantage."
D.R. in Kensington, MD: Landscaping. Year-round, complete Landscaping. Why else would Rudy have picked, well, you know...
J.H. in Boston, MA: Choosing the right attorney... and the attorney of the attorney.
D.A. in Brooklyn, NY: Given the current climate, I'm sure the number one major in the Electoral College is "Home Security" and the most popular minor is "Personal Self-Defense".
J.G. in Olympia, WA: How to Succeed in Elections Without Really Winning
Here is the question for next week:
M.B. in St. Paul, MN, asks: Can you—or your readers—make me feel better about the state of the world these days? I look at my 2-year-old son and I can't help but be terrified by what the future holds. The Mideast, Trump, Putin. Sometimes it's too much, and maybe we could all use a little hand holding.
Submit your answers here!