1/ This is a great piece by my Brookings colleagues (no manels here!):
lawfareblog.com/how-should-hou…
It raises some additional questions for me about the notion of "procedural fairness" in an age of institutional hardball. At the risk of thinking aloud at 6:30 pm on a Friday night...
lawfareblog.com/how-should-hou…
It raises some additional questions for me about the notion of "procedural fairness" in an age of institutional hardball. At the risk of thinking aloud at 6:30 pm on a Friday night...
2/ One question is whether in a world of fragile legislative norms-- in particular a norm of forbearance, which constrains lawmakers and parties from fully exploiting their parliamentary rights under the rules--majorities think differently about what procedural fairness require.
3/ Certainly McConnell's refusal to consider Obama's Supreme Court pick in 2015/6 exemplifies institutional hardball-- technically McC not *required* to provide advice and consent, but there was an expectation/norm that the majority would. But if one party engages in hardball,
4/ does that change our expectation of what counts as "procedural fairness" for the next Congressional majority? (I might personally practice "take the high road"...but pressures for tit-for-tat and the parliamentary arms race that ensues are pretty strong from each party's base.
5/ That of course is the problem of living in a world of fragile norms-- it takes two parties to maintain them. And in a hyper-partisan world where the pressures are rising to keep bending the rules/norms, it's hard to get a sense of what "procedural fairness" would look like.
6/ And of course, "fairness" is more often a claim of minority parties (until they become the majority) than it is of majority parties (until they become the majority).
7/ All that said, I do think there are ample reasons why Speaker Pelosi might care about the legitimacy of the impeachment process-- including her obligations as a constitutional officer.
8/ But more generally, I suspect the House's procedural path in pursuing impeachment is shaped by calculations about how to build the best case for attracting GOP support in the Senate. That seems quite 🥧 in the sky now.
9/ But I get the sense that debate abt whether, for example, to hold a House vote to authorize impeachment has less to do now about whether it's a problem for her majority makers and more about whether "procedural fairness" might attract GOP if Trump WH/admin continues to unravel
10/ Anyway, lots of food for thought in the Lawfare piece abt what procedural fairness means & demands in contemporary Congress--in a world in which political incentives can run counter to inherited rules/practices & in which norms of toleration/restraint are in short supply.
11/ In sum, the rules can be very sticky, which makes past practice hard to avoid. But norms are fragile -- and so complicates how parties think about whether or not to abide by inherited rules of the game. Okay friends. Go watch ⚾️⚾️ !!
