First, I'm generally a fan of not having legislatures pass too many laws. Especially in my filed--criminal law--an active legislature often means more punishment and less liberty.
But in modern times less active legislature doesn't necessarily mean fewer laws or more liberty.
Because it is so hard for legislatures to act, we see Congress and the states delegating a lot to agencies and executive officials. It's very easy for those institutions to act. And the harder it is for legislatures to act, the more it incentivizes and normalizes delegations.
It's even common for Congress to just throw a question to an agency because they aren't able to compromise. That what we saw happen with SORNA--the delegation that was challenged in the Gundy case.
Congress couldn't agree so they delegated to DOJ.
Unsurprisingly, when Congress let DOJ choose what the criminal law would look like, they chose the most expansive and prosecution-friendly regulation. I mean, who'd of thought that the prosecutors would write themselves the most pro-prosecution rule? 🤷♀️
To be clear, it isn't just the filibuster that makes legislatures so inactive. There's also the practice of letting leadership set the legislative agenda. If the majority leader in the Senate doesn't want a piece of legislation to get a vote, then it just doesn't.
That's not just an issue with legislation. It also matters for nominations. That's why Merrick Garland didn't even get an up-or-down vote in the Senate: Because Mitch McConnell didn't want him to.
That congressional leadership can control what gets a vote is a real problem when it comes to democratic accountability. As @AndyHessick and I explained in this @ArcDigi essay, it keeps voters from knowing what their representatives stand for. arcdigital.media/americas-battl…
Now, I imagine that some people would say that the filibuster and agenda setting are good things because they keep the Senate from becoming too majoritarian. Maybe they'd even quote Madison and talk about the evils of factions.
The thing is, Madison didn't think that factions were only a problem that is associated with majoritarian politics. He also explained that factions can represent a minority. He was just less concerned about minority factions because he thought democracy would defeat them.
But the filibuster and agenda setting seem like they entrench minority factions. They certainly exacerbate the non-democratic nature of the Senate, and unlike the equal representation of states, they aren't required by the Constitution and they don't promote federalism.
And yes, I know that a majority of the Senators could vote to do away with these rules. But we should really consider whether there are self-interests that incentivize Senators to keep these features even though it makes their constituents worse off.
In any event, I find myself inclined to agree with @BryanGividen that the filibuster is not consistent with constitutional design.
And in the off chance you're interested in my worries about delegation and criminal law, here's more on that topic: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It’s a serious problem that most Americans don’t know this. But we routinely fail to prosecute people who have obviously committed crimes. We just don’t have the capacity to pursue all of those cases.
Part of the problem is that we’ve made too many things illegal.
Another problem is that we’ve refused sufficiently fund the prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges we’d need for full enforcement.
But we also don’t have the cultural commitment to full enforcement.
Turley’s prominence in public discourse relies, in part, on his position as a professor—that status carries with it a claim to expertise on legal matters.
Apparently his expertise led him to conclude the exact opposite of what he is claiming now on an issue of great importance.
When I say “great importance,” I’m not exaggerating. Some Senators have already signaled that their vote in the impeachment trial will turn on this issue. And we know because he was asked to testify at previous impeachments, that GOP leadership sees Turley as an authority.
For all of the smart people (including some lawyers who follow me!) who keep saying that they have unanswered questions about problems with the election, please read this. washingtonpost.com/politics/us-at…
Whatever questions or concerns you have are simply not based in fact.
I understand that Fox News and various conservative websites keep insisting that there are real questions that remain unanswered.
But they are misleading you.
They're aren't real questions. Just misleading statements and flat out lies meant to create doubt in your mind.
Even the acting US Attorney in Atlanta was surprised that there was nothing to the allegations of voter fraud in that state.
I'm sure he watches the same news programs and reads the same websites you do.
But know he knows that all of those stories are false.
So strange that Law & Crime article questioning whether the Capitol rioters could be prosecuted for felony murder and it *never discusses* the most obvious predicate felony—burglary
As I will be teaching my first year criminal law students later this semester, felony murder is often a question of charging strategy for prosecutors. The defendant has often multiple felonies, some of which trigger felony murder and some of which don’t.
This article makes the classic mistake of analyzing only one possible underlying felony—sedition—and not the other, more mundane felonies, including burglary.
It’s the sort of error that loses students a lot of points on their final exam!
I was very glad to see so many GOP officials condemn the violence and damage caused when Pres Trump's supporters stormed the Capitol.
But I am troubled to see how many continue to either equivocate about--or even explicitly support--false claims of election fraud.
If Republicans want to push for legislation that would make it more difficult to vote, they are free to do so in Congress and statehouses.
But they need to clearly and forcefully denounce false claims that Joe Biden won the presidency because of fraud.
The only reason that Pres Trump was able to rally his supporters and tell them to march to the Capitol on Wednesday was because the GOP failed to denounce his false claims about a stolen election.
Many members of Congress supported his claims even after the Capitol was stormed.
I have seen so many people (including folks on #lawtwitter) comparing what happened at the Capitol yesterday with the violence and property damage that happened in some cities during protests last summer.
Let me explain what is wrong with that analogy . . . . .
To clarify -- my disagreement is not with those who are pointing out that law enforcement didn't respond with the same level of force and arrests at the capitol as it did during BLM protests.
That comparison deserves to be drawn and it raises some very important questions.
My disagreement is with those who are saying that what happened at the Capitol yesterday is so similar to what happened during protests this summer, that people's reactions ought to be similar--a suggestion that those reacting more strongly now are hypocritical.