- Aug 2021
-
www.newyorker.com www.newyorker.com
-
Terrifying
Hmm, I think “to terrify” is the point. We should be more serious to retain credibility.
-
- May 2021
-
www.newyorker.com www.newyorker.com
-
Jayapal favors invoking procedural maneuvers—such as the budget-reconciliation process, if possible—or reforming or eliminating the filibuster, if necessary. Jayapal told me, “We can’t go back to voters and say, ‘You know what, I’m really sorry, but there are these racist, arcane Senate procedures that stopped us from doing what we said we would do if you gave us the House, the Senate, and the White House.’ ”
So, her entire justification for subverting the democratic process is that it's the only way to pass her narrow agenda? Is she at all familiar with American democracy or is she thinking of the failed socialism of her Indian youth? God help us should we find the middle ground!
-
- Dec 2019
-
outline.com outline.com
-
But there’s another, more urgent sense in which impeachment exists as an alternative to politics.
This entire argument is vapid. Impeachment is a constitutional process, in that the constitution is a legal AND political document. But this article is a weak attempt to insist citizens care about it as an existential matter. Please.
The result is and always will be the politics because the "jury" in this process is the Senate, whose primary concern is to represent the political interests and demands of their constituents. Thus, they are not thinking of existential matters, but political consequences.
An impeachment trial that contradicts public opinion anywhere north of 30% risks a political upheaval which would constitute a greater threat to American society than anything that could emanate from the Oval Office. Everybody knows this and protestations to the contrary are more vacuous whining from a narrow opposition. It falls on deaf ears.
Tags
Annotators
URL
-