Super Lawyers
William C. Altreuter
visit superlawyers.com

Thursday, July 05, 2012

I wanted a big read for the summer, so I picked up a copy of Robert Caro's Master of the Senate. My plan may be thwarted, because the damn thing is so compulsively readable I might just bomb right through it. The damn thing very nearly tells its story in real time, but that turns out to be one of its charms. Johnson is, of course, a complicated character-- the first two volumes of the series established that, as well as establishing Caro's dislike for his subject. He still finds Johnson disagreeable, but seems to be coming around. When it is all said and done what this shelf of books may ultimately be about is America's Original Sin. Johnson was a profoundly flawed man, but his role in advancing civil rights cannot be disputed, and the case can certainly be made that he was the only person who could have accomplished what he did.

The other vibe I'm picking up from the book is the overall uselessness of the United States Senate. When Congress was the dominant force in American governance it served a role-- weak executives are what I usually think of when I think about the underlying causes of  the Civil War, but, of course, it was more complicated than that. The Senate managed to hold things together for a while, maybe long enough for the nation to endure the Civil War, rather than merely splintering. Would that have been an altogether bad thing? Well, it sure as hell would have been bad for slaves, so I suppose that's justification enough today. The whole notion of State's Rights, and the necessity of state representation in Congress has caused a great deal of mischief, and I think the time has come to start rethinking it.

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Charley Pierce articulates a point that I've been musing over lately:
I don't believe there ever has been a time like this in our history. We have had periods of severe political polarization before, but those were periods in which the government was polarized because of conflicting ideas of what the national government should do. Right now, we have a polarization based on the fact that an uncontrollable faction of one of our two political parties — a faction with its own sources of money and power that exist outside conventional political accountability — has decided that the only thing that the national government should do is nothing, a faction that is perfectly situated to make that at least part of a political reality, and a faction that is growing even faster out in the states than it is in Washington. What is leadership if there's more political profit in ignoring your leaders than in being led? Who, in that case, rules? The truly terrifying answer to that is that nobody does. Or, at least, nobody who is elected does. 
I think that is is pretty true. My PoliSci mentor, Professor Edward Janosik, used to tell us that in the US political parties were essentially non-ideological. He was right, naturally. My summer reading at the moment is present volume in Robert Caro's Lyndon Johnson epic, The Passage of Power, and there it is: Richard Russell and John F. Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey and John Stennis-- all Democrats. You could play the same mix'n'match with Republicans, and that was the point-- although the two parties were vying for political advantage, they were not so polarized by  ideology as to be incapable of functioning.That said, the number of veto points embedded in the American system of government means that it is not difficult to shut things down: as Caro notes, that's exactly what happened to the JFK administration. I would be interested in seeing an empirical study on Congressional stalls since, say, the Truman administration, because I am not so sure that what we are seeing at present is actually unique.

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

With the most recent volume of Robert Caro's Lyndon Johnson biography still ringing in my mind (the last two, actually) today's Supreme Court decision kicking the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the curb sickens me. It was a nearly impossible mountain to climb when it was enacted, and the rational for dispensing with it is an utter fiction. The fact that Congress re-authorized the Act 390 to 33 in the House and 98 to 0 in the Senate seven years ago is blithely waived off. This is, simply stated, a naked usurpation of legislative authority by the Court.

The Washington Post has a map that shows which states were required to submit changes in voting rules for pre-clearence; they are the states you'd expect. More interesting is the list of individual jurisdictions that were covered. For instance, Bronx County, Kings County and New York County. And Monterrey County, California.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?