Opera singer, blogger, lawyer. You can reach me by email at david [at] bluemassgroup [dot] com.

Person #2: 4237 Posts

Recommended: 604 times

Posts   |   Comments

  1. Just FYI, (0 Replies)

    what happened here was that you posted a comment with enough links in it to trigger moderation. Once that was posted, all of your subsequent comments were held as well until we approved the one with the links. Sorry for the inconvenience, but as far as we know, the comment system is actually working fine.

  2. The dividing line, such as it is, (1 Reply)

    is between procedural requirements (like signatures and ministerial paper filings) and substantive qualifications. The Supreme Court rejected a term limits law denying ballot access to candidates who had already served a certain number of terms in Congress. Which side of the line a tax return law would fall is somewhat dubious, but I think there’s a good chance it would fall on the substantive side of the line. You can read the Term Limits case for yourself and decide what you think.

  3. Why would those be unconstitutional (2 Replies)

    but this wouldn’t? There are pretty severe limits on the extent to which states can limit ballot access for federal candidates.

  4. I'm not seeing it (1 Reply)

    It should not be there – probably a rogue Google ad. Try reloading or maybe clearing your cache, or just wait a bit. These things usually go away on their own.

  5. If you're talking about the emoluments clause, (1 Reply)

    there’s been quite a lot of discussion as to who would have standing to raise the question of whether the clause has been violated. We may find out soon.

  6. As far as Framingham etc. goes, (1 Reply)

    Hillary never campaigned in MA. She went to fundraisers, which is not campaigning. This is because MA is not a swing state. Are you seriously saying that she never went to places in PA and OH, for instance, where the people you’re talking about live and work? That’s not the campaign I saw.

  7. Sure, there are differences (1 Reply)

    based on where people live, among other things. If an economic plan is limited to “bring back coal mining,” for instance, that’s not exactly reaching out to all demographic groups. There are also non-economic issues specific to certain of the subgroups you identify that, it seems to me, it should be possible to pay attention to while also pitching a pro-worker agenda. Surely the Democratic party can walk and chew gum at the same time.

  8. The idea that tons of Obama voters went for Trump (1 Reply)

    is, to me, problematic at best in terms of a way for Dems to move forward, in part because the explanation is probably more complicated than you’re making it out to be. For instance, this Twitter thread makes a good point way better than I could, but the short version is that Clinton was actually quite a bit more progressive on some race-related issues, such as police brutality and systemic racism, than Obama was during either of his campaigns.

  9. No constitutional change is needed. (2 Replies)

    NPV is an interstate compact that takes effect once states representing a majority (270) of electoral votes sign on. They’re well over halfway there. If you don’t want to do it, fine, but the difficulty of amending the Constitution is irrelevant to this debate.

  10. Or inconsistent with Lawrence, (0 Replies)

    for that matter. If there are enough vacancies, all bets are off.

  11. A state just passes a law or imposes a restriction (1 Reply)

    inconsistent with Obergefell and waits to get sued. It’s the strategy anti-choice forces have been using for years re Roe.

  12. Thing is, (1 Reply)

    SCOTUS justices have a funny habit of not doing what might be most politically advantageous for the president that installed them, once they take office. And I really can’t imagine Trump going for some sort of moderate appointment.

  13. Marriage (3 Replies)

    is Supreme Court fodder. That’s the thing – Trump doesn’t have to do it. He just has to appoint Scalia’s replacement, hope for a vacancy from Ginsburg, Breyer, or Kennedy, and then let things take their course. SCOTUS can overrule Obergefell and toss the issue back to the states, at which point bans that are still on the books in many places (though currently unenforceable) will suddenly spring back into force. Some states will eliminate them either via their own state courts or legislatively; others will not.

  14. I agree with this excellent comment. (1 Reply)

    And I would add that the existence of the Governor’s Council has historically weakened the Governorship substantially by creating an essentially plural executive. Much of their power, mercifully, has been stripped away, but I still can’t see how anyone could seriously claim that the MA Governor is among the country’s strongest.

  15. No thanks to parliamentary democracy, which among other things (1 Reply)

    would require a truly epic constitutional amendment. Plus, it would be intolerable to have broken away from England, only to conclude that they were right all along. ;)

    But the problem of gerrymandering can be eliminated by doing away with single-member congressional districts, combined with IRV or cumulative voting or another system that prevents minority voices from being drowned out. And, crucially, single-member districts are a legislative creation. No reason that can’t be changed – no constitutional amendment required.