The Senate will vote later today to confirm Amy Coney Barrett as the sixth right-wing justice on a Supreme Court that is already historically pro-corporate.
This is just the latest in a crisis of democracy fed by and feeding multiple crises.
American government has become increasingly counter-majoritarian.
The Republican Party is on track by the end of 2020 to pick 67 percent of the life-tenured justices but only win the popular vote in 12 percent of the last eight presidential elections. rooseveltinstitute.org/2020/09/23/his…
Further, 18 percent of the population picks a majority of the Senate that will confirm Amy Coney Barrett. Over four million Americans in DC and the US territories have no say over the Senate (and by extension, the Court) at all. Read @jbouie for more. nytimes.com/2019/05/10/opi…
The Electoral College – whereby states matter more than citizens – gives small states outsize influence and serves to suppress voter participation in states that are reliably blue or red. No other advanced democracy has such an institution. link.springer.com/article/10.100…
As @RonBrownstein notes, “Though Republican nominees have won the popular vote only once in the five presidential elections since 2000, the GOP has controlled the White House for 12 of the 20 years since then.” edition.cnn.com/2020/08/11/pol…
The lower courts are just as tilted. As @scotusreporter and @seungminkim note, "There are no vacancies on the circuit court level, where approximately 30 percent of those on the bench have been nominated by Trump – who lost the popular vote."
Republican governors and legislatures from Arizona to Georgia have expanded the size of state supreme courts to entrench their rule, as @EricLevitz notes. nymag.com/intelligencer/…
And as @EJDionne@TakeBacktheCt have flagged, this right-wing dominance influences how the courts at various levels vote on democracy itself, with GOP judges voting to impede ballot access at two times the rate of Democratic appointees.
These counter-majoritarian features have led political scientists @levitsky2 and @dziblatt, who literally wrote the book on “How Democracies Die”, to warn that “In our political system, however, the majority does not govern. “
The crisis of democracy on its own would be bad enough. But it’s made worse by and makes worse the other challenges we face: COVID, inequality, the climate crisis, and systemic racism.
A response to COVID at scale will require executive branch agencies to move quickly on vaccines, commandeering supply chains, etc. Yet right-wing justices embrace judicial theories that make it harder for Congress to delegate authority for them to do so. washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/…
Ditto the economic recovery that is worsening inequality. Justices during the Lochner era (the so-called “originalists” of their day) blocked much of the early New Deal’s response to the Great Depression. Barrett could help do so again, per @imillhiser vox.com/21497317/origi…
This judicial philosophy will also make it very difficult to address the climate crisis, as @JodyFreemanHLS points out here
Climate-induced changes in state population patterns will lead to worsening inequalities in the Senate, going from a 67-to-1 discrepancy between the power of the least to the most populous state, to 154-to-1 by the end of the century. rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/f…
Fourth, as @ElieNYC reminds us, the right-wing elements on the Court have been busy shredding the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, all which entrench systemic racism and White minority rule as the country become majority people of color. thenation.com/article/societ…
Luckily, there are steps we can take to begin the process of building democracy back better, and in the process improve our ability to address existential threats.
We can expand the number of justices so that the composition of the Court reflects the country – something that is constitutional, can be done by majority vote in the House and Senate, and has been done repeatedly at moments of crisis. rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/o…
This has precedent in other countries, some of whom strip the normal courts of the ability to hear cases affecting unions and labor. rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/s…
We can eliminate the filibuster, which we have already done for SCOTUS nominees. Indeed, that’s how Barrett is even sailing through. We could do that for good things, like de-carbonization. rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/f…
We can give Senate representation to DC and the territories, with statehood for those that want it or without it for those that don’t. And we can honor treaty commitments to give Native Americans dedicated congressional representation. politico.com/interactives/2…
That’s the low-hanging fruit of stuff that’s constitutional. But a more comprehensive approach would make it easier to modernize the Constitution itself
And any solution to our domestic democracy will need a new approach to how we manage globalization, as @trevorcsutton@AndyGreenSF of @amprog argue here
If this seems like a big lift, that’s because it is.
But as @FeliciaWongRI told @ThePlumLineGS, if progressives are hoping to push for ambitious governmental reforms of the economy, it will be a nonstarter unless they credibly represent a “government that actually works better for the public good.” washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/…
And fixing US democracy so we can regulate better can help address the global climate crisis.
Finally, these structural fixes will (eventually) lower the winner-take-all arms race nature of US elections and force both sides to compete for working people's votes.
In the short run, per @Jacob_S_Hacker and Paul Pierson, the side with the unpopular ideas will continue to escalate. It can't be a one-sided fight, especially with principled fixes on hand that will improve lives. END wwnorton.com/books/97816314…
The case ended up hinging on a question that seems pretty unrelated to trade:
Does the totality of a country’s legal system say anything about its moral values? Thread wto.org/english/news_e…
It was not unexpected that the WTO would find the levies in violation of the most-favored nation rules.
These are at the core of the global trading system, and ensure that the US generally gives every WTO member the same treatment.
The US did not even contest the point.
Rather, the US defense was that the MFN-violating trade actions were taken to further the cause of public morals – citing Article XX(a) of the GATT. wto.org/english/docs_e…
It envisions an ongoing review and planning process to ensure that the US always has access to critical supplies. This complements planning exercises that the DoD already does, and that all of government should be doing (but basically hasn't) through the DPAS process.
While some experts have called for *either* stockpiling resources *or* reshoring - the plan envisions an all of the above approach.
You want a thread on databases on policy responses to the COVID crisis? Here you go.
First up, the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT) drawn up by @thomasnhale and co that has the nifty feature of summarizing disparate types of responses - say, school closures and stimulus - by an index of overall "stringency." bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/resea…
As it turns out, most governments around the world lean towards stringent policy responses.
That includes Sweden, which has gotten dinged in the press for its (in relative terms) lax response.
Canadian parliament to ratify USMCA trade pact Friday, as part of its coronavirus response.
While this might reassure markets, there are reasons to be worried about what this template means for governments' ability to respond to health crises.
As I wrote in December, the USMCA maintains or goes further than NAFTA 1.0 on setting constraints on countries' public health regulations. medium.com/@toddntucker/t…
We're still in the process of figuring out how long the virus can survive outside the human body, but estimates have been getting revised upwards to 2-3 days.
That's a long stretch in super efficient commercial / delivery markets - both domestic and intl time.com/5801278/corona…
The Senate excludes the majority non white populations of DC and the territories. We can fix that without a constitutional amendment tomorrow. politico.com/interactives/2…
Yesterday, Trump's USTR put out a blistering 174-page critique of the WTO's Appellate Body. It echoes criticisms long made by progressives, and indeed, features an extended appendix quoting Dems like Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). ustr.gov/about-us/polic…
Much of the substantive criticism focuses on the AB's activism with respect to so-called "trade remedy" measures, or those policies like anti-dumping measures that allow a country to smooth out sudden or "unfair" import shifts, which I discuss here: thenation.com/article/archiv…
But USTR also spends a good chunk of time discussing a trend we've seen in AB decisions over the last decade or so, which basically explodes so-called "national treatment" or "non-discrimination" standards into a hunting license to go after virtually any regulation.