We've been in a Cold Civil War since about 2008. If or when it turns hot, it'll be more like the Spanish Civil War than our previous hot one because there is no specific geography to outline the contending sides. Pelosi et al are already playing with fire with the refusal to take the security of USSC justices appointed by Republican Presidents seriously. The spark that triggered the Spanish was the refusal of a legitimately elected government to prosecute the assassination of an opposition politician, not an overt act of oppression by the government.
That's an interesting point. I wonder if someone noticed that before, and called for the purging of the military over the last two years with that in mind.
Oh, hadn't realized it was that early. I first heard of it circa Jan 2020.
I guess someone did realize that a bit earlier... I do recall buddies of mine in the reserves worrying about that they were going to get called out to put down protests and might get asked to fire upon civilians around that time (Tea Party, etc.) I suppose I should have realized the leadership would catch wind of that potential for disobediance.
First, the filibuster has already been removed for SC picks.
Second, wouldn't the Biden admin and blue team choose both a.) and b.), decrying the violence and quickly confirming a new justice? There is no world where they would leave the Court at eight, in order to give the R's a chance to replace 'their' pick, right?
Nominating Merrick Garland would be perfect. It would square the circle. I’m no fan of progressive causes but the refusal to vote on him was a clear escalation so I think your answer to this question was sealed then.
It would presumably be bad, though then again Republicans are generally submissive. The attempted mass shooting of Scalise et al was not followed by any reprisals. Scalia being found dead with a pillow over his face just led to some nervous chuckling.
Suggested future topic: interview proponents of MMT re inflation. This seems like just the right time to do it.
To be fair, Stephanie Kelton, a leading proponent of MMT (and Season 1 FITS) always said high tax rates on the wealthy to take money back out of the economy & prevent inflation was a necessary component of MMT.
My sarky answer: "Mitt Romney gives a stern speech on civility, and apologizes before and after in case anyone is offended."
What I really think? It would be a very large brick in the wall that separates the citizenry from its government. Truth is, while some in government are bothered that the citizenry dislikes and distrusts them, most don't care. The government is a monster and it will do what it wants to do whether the citizenry likes it or not. What do TARP, the Trump / Russia hoax, COVID lockdowns, BLM protests and Jan-6 prosecutions have in common? The government does what it wants to do, so shut-up and don't complain.
"But the assassination of a Supreme Court justice seems to me to have the potential to trigger one."
Replace 'trigger' with 'characterize'.
Modern domestic factional conflict doesn't look like the American Civil War with large armies maneuvering to engage and destroy each other and to gain control over area that is mostly exclusively aligned with one side. It's more like North Ireland, Lebanon, or Latin America in the 70s-80s.
Conflicts between groups that are often geographically integrated - especially in urban areas - and which grind on for years without definitive gains for anyone, with large numbers of relatively small and low level microattacks with a specifically political motive not unlike mafia / cartel hits (assassinating politicians, generals, police chiefs, journalists, judges, prosecutors, etc.) or in the manner of terrorist intimidation, or just as often in gang-war-like repeated iterations of tit for tat murders by paramilitary groups or even less formal bands of armed supporters of the cause.
While this seems like a pretty bleak picture, it's worth noting that many of these situations have calmed down into tense but semi-stable partial settlements based on consociationistic power sharing arrangements and, more importantly, new pervasive surveillance technology that neutralized most of the ability to operate in the clandestine manner required to perpetuate these kinds of organizations and operations.
Then again, the big drug cartels have been figuring out how to deal with that, and part of the answer is a lot more murders.
That's an interesting take. Thinking about North Ireland, has there been real political change as a result of the back and forth war? I had always gotten the impression that people were killed but nothing really changed, which is why eventually it simmered down as subsequent generations started to lose interest in the face of no gains. I honestly don't know one way or the other, but it seems like N. Ireland was closer to the cartel/mafia model in the end.
Yes you are right. Tony Blair (May he rot in perpetuity) excluded the moderates, decency and democratic process and and handed power to the violent, murdering butchering extremists at both margins, and authoritarian rule. It proves that when you have a weak, corrupt, slimy, self-serving ‘leader’ they’ll treat and trade with the worst just to get the monkey off their back.
It’s like the mayor and police chief handing over control of the city to two rival gangs. It stops the ‘war’ but not the crime and the people are stranded in the middle.
To the extent that the Supreme Court has become a super-legislature there should be no surprise at the vitriol. Pretty much all the members in any controversial decision are captured by their own partisan motivated reasoning. If the congress is going to continue to abdicate its responsibilities and the SC is going to be a super-legislature the lifetime appointment should be changed to some sort of limited tenure. There's not going to be some shooting civil war even if there is more political violence. Only the fringe of the fringiest would even think of participating. Maybe the coming recession will improve the cultural sanity issues.
‘… another Civil War in this country. Most agree that it is very unlikely.’
Maybe that’s the problem - moral hazard. War/violence is costly to both winner and loser, so all animals and the Human animal try to avoid it. A fair electoral process and representative Government is promoted as the way to avoid war to resolve political differences, but when what we have is neither fair nor representative, its operatives corrupt and contemptuous of the deplorable, populist voters who actually want done what they want, what then?
We have a ruling class certain they can never be ousted or punished, who are unaccountable and uncontrollable. The Establishment pre-selects whom we may vote for, rigs elections (one way or another) to ensure we chose from within their pre-selection. The elected fear no consequence, so there is no incentive for them to limit their incontinent behaviour.
Our politicians are the ultimate recyclables in a system of MeToo policies and Buggins’ Turn: I’ll be back.
And it’s worse in UK and Europe with multi-Party systems and perpetual coalitions where election just change some of the place names around the table but nothing else in terms of policies or direction.
Even our ersatz democracy can only work if there is choice and a real possibility that those elected can be removed and held to proper account for their malfeasance, negligence, recklessness.
They would nominate a "moderate" judge that wouldn't sign onto any legal decisions that could fundamentally challenge the progressive state. The violence would be condemned in the same way that BLM rioting was condemned, officially but not effectively.
The media would praise their moderation and they would get what they want in the end.
One possibility would be to split the difference and raise the number of Justices to 10. The agreement would be the Democrats would get to confirm whoever the President wanted without any resistance or even hearings, and likewise, GOP Senators would vote to pick a judge and would get a confirmation the same way. Post-assassination, the DEMS gain in that a 5-4 Court is now 5-5, and the GOP doesn't lose a whole justice or go into minority, because it still gets some security of preservation of the status quo in case of a 5:5 deadlock.
However, this only goes so far in reducing the incentive to assassinate Justices. A superior rule is that in the event of any assassination, the party of the President who appointed the murdered Justice gets to pick the replacement without objection.
We've been in a Cold Civil War since about 2008. If or when it turns hot, it'll be more like the Spanish Civil War than our previous hot one because there is no specific geography to outline the contending sides. Pelosi et al are already playing with fire with the refusal to take the security of USSC justices appointed by Republican Presidents seriously. The spark that triggered the Spanish was the refusal of a legitimately elected government to prosecute the assassination of an opposition politician, not an overt act of oppression by the government.
That's an interesting point. I wonder if someone noticed that before, and called for the purging of the military over the last two years with that in mind.
The military purge started under Obama and has continued unabated since.
Oh, hadn't realized it was that early. I first heard of it circa Jan 2020.
I guess someone did realize that a bit earlier... I do recall buddies of mine in the reserves worrying about that they were going to get called out to put down protests and might get asked to fire upon civilians around that time (Tea Party, etc.) I suppose I should have realized the leadership would catch wind of that potential for disobediance.
First, the filibuster has already been removed for SC picks.
Second, wouldn't the Biden admin and blue team choose both a.) and b.), decrying the violence and quickly confirming a new justice? There is no world where they would leave the Court at eight, in order to give the R's a chance to replace 'their' pick, right?
Nominating Merrick Garland would be perfect. It would square the circle. I’m no fan of progressive causes but the refusal to vote on him was a clear escalation so I think your answer to this question was sealed then.
It would presumably be bad, though then again Republicans are generally submissive. The attempted mass shooting of Scalise et al was not followed by any reprisals. Scalia being found dead with a pillow over his face just led to some nervous chuckling.
Suggested future topic: interview proponents of MMT re inflation. This seems like just the right time to do it.
To be fair, Stephanie Kelton, a leading proponent of MMT (and Season 1 FITS) always said high tax rates on the wealthy to take money back out of the economy & prevent inflation was a necessary component of MMT.
"What if he had been assassinated?"
My sarky answer: "Mitt Romney gives a stern speech on civility, and apologizes before and after in case anyone is offended."
What I really think? It would be a very large brick in the wall that separates the citizenry from its government. Truth is, while some in government are bothered that the citizenry dislikes and distrusts them, most don't care. The government is a monster and it will do what it wants to do whether the citizenry likes it or not. What do TARP, the Trump / Russia hoax, COVID lockdowns, BLM protests and Jan-6 prosecutions have in common? The government does what it wants to do, so shut-up and don't complain.
"But the assassination of a Supreme Court justice seems to me to have the potential to trigger one."
Replace 'trigger' with 'characterize'.
Modern domestic factional conflict doesn't look like the American Civil War with large armies maneuvering to engage and destroy each other and to gain control over area that is mostly exclusively aligned with one side. It's more like North Ireland, Lebanon, or Latin America in the 70s-80s.
Conflicts between groups that are often geographically integrated - especially in urban areas - and which grind on for years without definitive gains for anyone, with large numbers of relatively small and low level microattacks with a specifically political motive not unlike mafia / cartel hits (assassinating politicians, generals, police chiefs, journalists, judges, prosecutors, etc.) or in the manner of terrorist intimidation, or just as often in gang-war-like repeated iterations of tit for tat murders by paramilitary groups or even less formal bands of armed supporters of the cause.
While this seems like a pretty bleak picture, it's worth noting that many of these situations have calmed down into tense but semi-stable partial settlements based on consociationistic power sharing arrangements and, more importantly, new pervasive surveillance technology that neutralized most of the ability to operate in the clandestine manner required to perpetuate these kinds of organizations and operations.
Then again, the big drug cartels have been figuring out how to deal with that, and part of the answer is a lot more murders.
That's an interesting take. Thinking about North Ireland, has there been real political change as a result of the back and forth war? I had always gotten the impression that people were killed but nothing really changed, which is why eventually it simmered down as subsequent generations started to lose interest in the face of no gains. I honestly don't know one way or the other, but it seems like N. Ireland was closer to the cartel/mafia model in the end.
Yes you are right. Tony Blair (May he rot in perpetuity) excluded the moderates, decency and democratic process and and handed power to the violent, murdering butchering extremists at both margins, and authoritarian rule. It proves that when you have a weak, corrupt, slimy, self-serving ‘leader’ they’ll treat and trade with the worst just to get the monkey off their back.
It’s like the mayor and police chief handing over control of the city to two rival gangs. It stops the ‘war’ but not the crime and the people are stranded in the middle.
20% is too high, under 10 I think.
I think you are underestimating the odds of both hypotheticals.
To the extent that the Supreme Court has become a super-legislature there should be no surprise at the vitriol. Pretty much all the members in any controversial decision are captured by their own partisan motivated reasoning. If the congress is going to continue to abdicate its responsibilities and the SC is going to be a super-legislature the lifetime appointment should be changed to some sort of limited tenure. There's not going to be some shooting civil war even if there is more political violence. Only the fringe of the fringiest would even think of participating. Maybe the coming recession will improve the cultural sanity issues.
I assume these are the kind of losers that would be willing to participate in armed conflict.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/pack-your-stuff-and-get-out-of-my-house-says-patriot-front-members-mom
What if Democrats just appointed someone like Merrick Garland or just anyone that does not have an activist agenda like the current "Conservatives."
You mean, doesn't have the same agenda that I do.
‘… another Civil War in this country. Most agree that it is very unlikely.’
Maybe that’s the problem - moral hazard. War/violence is costly to both winner and loser, so all animals and the Human animal try to avoid it. A fair electoral process and representative Government is promoted as the way to avoid war to resolve political differences, but when what we have is neither fair nor representative, its operatives corrupt and contemptuous of the deplorable, populist voters who actually want done what they want, what then?
We have a ruling class certain they can never be ousted or punished, who are unaccountable and uncontrollable. The Establishment pre-selects whom we may vote for, rigs elections (one way or another) to ensure we chose from within their pre-selection. The elected fear no consequence, so there is no incentive for them to limit their incontinent behaviour.
Our politicians are the ultimate recyclables in a system of MeToo policies and Buggins’ Turn: I’ll be back.
And it’s worse in UK and Europe with multi-Party systems and perpetual coalitions where election just change some of the place names around the table but nothing else in terms of policies or direction.
Even our ersatz democracy can only work if there is choice and a real possibility that those elected can be removed and held to proper account for their malfeasance, negligence, recklessness.
Absent that - sharpen the pitchforks brethren.
They would nominate a "moderate" judge that wouldn't sign onto any legal decisions that could fundamentally challenge the progressive state. The violence would be condemned in the same way that BLM rioting was condemned, officially but not effectively.
The media would praise their moderation and they would get what they want in the end.
One possibility would be to split the difference and raise the number of Justices to 10. The agreement would be the Democrats would get to confirm whoever the President wanted without any resistance or even hearings, and likewise, GOP Senators would vote to pick a judge and would get a confirmation the same way. Post-assassination, the DEMS gain in that a 5-4 Court is now 5-5, and the GOP doesn't lose a whole justice or go into minority, because it still gets some security of preservation of the status quo in case of a 5:5 deadlock.
However, this only goes so far in reducing the incentive to assassinate Justices. A superior rule is that in the event of any assassination, the party of the President who appointed the murdered Justice gets to pick the replacement without objection.
If you really wanted to deter assassination, you would expand to 10 and let the GOP pick two without objection.
No, then people would kill their own side's Justices, especially old ones. You want there to be nothing or very little to gain from killing anybody.
I guess you can't prove why someone kills someone.
My heart is no yet sufficiently dark as to have thought of that.