Wednesday’s Forum

FILED UNDER: Open Forum
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor of Political Science and a College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter

Comments

  1. CSK says:

    Well, it turns out that the election wasn’t stolen after all. Biden just isn’t the legitimate president:

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/21/republicans-biden-trump-election-democracy

    ReplyReply
  2. Thomm says:

    @CSK: how is that any different than the way they have looked at things since, say, 1992?

    ReplyReply
    3
  3. CSK says:

    @Thomm:
    Well, for one thing, I don’t recall a movement to deny that Clinton legitimately won the election, or mobs of people invading the Capitol to keep his predecessor in office.

    ReplyReply
    5
  4. Jen says:

    Trump has withdrawn his endorsement of Mo Brooks, calling him “woke.”

    ReplyReply
  5. Thomm says:

    @CSK: the article says the win itself was llegitimate, but the idea of a Dem president and/or congressional majority is,
    “It has become a core tenet of the Republican worldview to consider the Democratic party as not simply a political opponent, but an enemy pursuing an “un-American” project of turning what is supposed to be a white Christian patriarchal nation into a land of godless multiracial pluralism.”

    ReplyReply
  6. MarkedMan says:

    @Jen: And so another malignant patsy learns a fundamental Trump Truth: when he turns on you he doesn’t just walk away. He puts the failure on you and turns you into a whipping boy.

    Doesn’t change the truth though: Trump’s endorsement and Brooks sycophancy wasn’t enough to help him. Trump can’t move the needle even in a bright red state. Maybe especially in a bright red state.

    ReplyReply
    2
  7. CSK says:

    @Jen:
    So Brooks is “woke” because he disagrees that the 2020 election was stolen? That’s hilarious.
    @Thomm:
    Yes, I know. But I’m not sure what you’re arguing here.

    ReplyReply
    3
  8. Mu Yixiao says:

    @CSK:
    Holy hell.

    ReplyReply
  9. Jim Brown 32 says:

    I must admit HL92, your fawning endorsement of soon to be Justice KBJ was not just hyberbolous (is that a word? It is today.) bluster.

    She’s been trained quite well and has very good Command of the many eloquent approaches to convey, “You stoopid AF”

    She demonstrated not only the word content of this technique— but the proper meter and cadence that allows actual smart people in the room to behold the stoopid while simultaneously providing enough air of seriousness to keep the entertainment going. Lloyd Austin has a similar style. I don’t know how they do it with a straight face.

    Oh, and its clear she has a firm command of the Law.

    ReplyReply
    8
  10. CSK says:

    @Mu Yixiao:
    Yeah, I know. When you “deprive” some people of the things to which they feel they’re entitled, all hell breaks loose.

    There may be an element of “Trump was chosen by God to lead us” in the mix here, which makes it all the more pernicious. After all, how can you defy, or deny, God’s will?

    ReplyReply
  11. wr says:

    Senator Mike Braun of Indiana not only wants the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, he believes that states should have the right to ban contraceptives and interracial marriage. Yup, that’s right — not gay marriage (although I’m sure that’s high on his list) but interracial marriage.

    Astonishing to me how the party that insists it stands for freedom defines that word as allowing state governments to control the most intimate parts of our lives.

    I do hope the Dems plan to hang this around the neck of every Republican — and the radical reactionaries on the court.

    ReplyReply
    3
  12. gVOR08 says:

    @CSK: Somehow The Guardian wrote that whole thing without saying “white supremacy” or “ethnonationalist”. One wonders why.

    ReplyReply
  13. CSK says:

    When you’re seeking foreign policy advice from Kid Rock…

    http://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/mar/22/kid-rock-donald-trump-north-korea-islamic-state

    ReplyReply
  14. CSK says:

    @gVOR08:
    Well, the author did mention “deeply held convictions of white Christian patriarchal dominance.”

    ReplyReply
    1
  15. Matt says:

    @CSK: Clinton was considered an illegitimate president from day one. Bob Dole and some other higher up GOP members pushed the notion that they represented the silent majority blahblahblah. That election is the earliest time I recall the GOP’s talking point that Democratic wins are never legitimate.

    Then there was the Brook Brother’s riot in Florida where GOP operatives and voters attacked the recount location for Miami-Dade county…

    ReplyReply
    3
  16. Scott says:

    @gVOR08:

    It does:

    It has become a core tenet of the Republican worldview to consider the Democratic party as not simply a political opponent, but an enemy pursuing an “un-American” project of turning what is supposed to be a white Christian patriarchal nation into a land of godless multiracial pluralism.

    It is precisely the mixture of deeply held ideological convictions of white Christian patriarchal dominance, of what “real America” is supposed to be and who gets to rule there, and the cynical opportunism with which these beliefs are enforced that makes the assault on democracy so dangerous.

    It is all about Christian Nationalism. BTW, whenever you see or hear the words “Religious Liberty”, think Christian Nationalism.

    Also BTW, put this in the same authoritarian category as Hindu Nationalism and Islamic Law. It is not just in the US but worldwide. Putin’s attack on Ukraine is just part of it.

    I just feel that most writers, pundits, and media are afraid of the topic and are quite intimidated.

    ReplyReply
    4
  17. CSK says:

    @Matt:
    Thanks. I don’t recall this, though I’ll certainly take your word for it.

    Still, there are big differences between then and now. George Bush didn’t incite a mob to storm the Capitol building. Nor did he complain loudly and persistently that the election was stolen from him.
    He went home to Texas and kept his mouth shut.

    ReplyReply
    3
  18. CSK says:

    Sarah Palin says she’d be “honored” to replace Don Young in the House of Representatives.

    ReplyReply
  19. Kathy says:

    @Matt:

    Bill Clinton has the distinction of twice winning the Electoral College vote without winning a majority of the popular vote (though both times he won more votes than his opponents). Some people never quite grasp the difference between the two vote tallies, nor understand why the EC vote is the one that matters.

    ReplyReply
    2
  20. Kathy says:

    I’ll try not to spoil “The Dropout,” the drama based on the fraud Holmes perpetrated.

    But I came across some scenes that gave rise to a question. Minimizing spoilers, Holmes sued her former neighbor* over a patent he filed (details are unimportant). the neighbor subpoenas a Theranos chemist, Ian Gibbons, to testify in a deposition.

    Gibbons feels trapped here, because he has signed an NDA with Theranos. He explains he can either testify truthfully and be sued by Holmes, or lie and be prosecuted for perjury.

    So, the question is: is there an exception to NDAs in legal matters? If not, shouldn’t there be? That is, in a deposition or a criminal trial, one should be able to answer truthfully even if doing so violates the terms of the NDA. Conversely, one ought to be able to reply in testimony, “I’m not at liberty to answer this question due to NDA restrictions.” O something along these lines.

    I fear I know what the answer is: Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t. Choose one already!

    ReplyReply
  21. Flat Earth Luddite says:

    @CSK:
    Scary stuff. Accurate but scary.

    ReplyReply
    3
  22. Jen says:

    @CSK: He did considerably better than not inciting a mob…he wrote a wonderful letter to Clinton, largely considered to be a portrait of grace in defeat.

    Dear Bill,

    When I walked into this office just now I felt the same sense of wonder and respect that I felt four years ago. I know you will feel that, too.

    I wish you great happiness here. I never felt the loneliness some Presidents have described.

    There will be very tough times, made even more difficult by criticism you may not think is fair. I’m not a very good one to give advice; but just don’t let the critics discourage you or push you off course.

    You will be our President when you read this note. I wish you well. I wish your family well.

    Your success now is our country’s success. I am rooting hard for you.

    Good luck—

    George

    He and Bill actually ended up reasonably close friends.

    ReplyReply
    8
  23. Matt says:

    @CSK: Bush Sr was a class act..

    The rest of the GOP not so much. Among the rank and file of the GOP base Bill Clinton was never a legitimate president. Bob Dole and others helped this by pointing out that the minority voted for Clinton. The silent majority the moral majority etc etc were clearly the real Americans who loved the GOP only..

    You can trace a lot of what happened under trump back to the 90s and gore v bush.

    ReplyReply
    3
  24. CSK says:

    @Jen:
    That’s a model letter. I think G.H.W. Bush, whatever else one might say about him, was probably the last real old school gentleman (old-fashioned word) in public life. And if I’m not mistaken, Clinton in later years came to regard G.H.W. as a father figure. I’ve also read that a number of people said that G.H.W. was the nicest man they’d ever met.

    Trump brought public behavior and public discourse to unprecedented depths of boorishness.

    ReplyReply
    4
  25. Matt says:

    @Matt: Unfortunately there’s no equivalent of Bush Sr in today’s GOP to calm things down..

    ReplyReply
  26. CSK says:

    @Matt:
    Let’s not forget the role of Sarah Palin in acclimating us to the joy of boobish yokeldom.

    ReplyReply
    2
  27. Sleeping Dog says:

    @Matt:

    If there were, he/she would be considered a RINO.

    ReplyReply
    3
  28. Sleeping Dog says:

    @CSK:

    Somehow I don’t see Alaskan’s voting for Palin. They have become accustomed to sending Reps and Senators to Washington that bring home the bacon. All that Palin is good for is performative BS.

    ReplyReply
    1
  29. grumpy realist says:

    @Kathy: The standard way (if one has been intelligent) is to write the NDA with clauses limiting the NDA and allowing either party to release otherwise confidential information upon request by law officials, governmental bodies, etc. Quite common with NDAs involving technology.

    Otherwise there are ways the courts can get at least some information–closed chambers, etc. Or the individual who wants to testify can make the argument that the NDA was signed under coercion and get it struck down. It is, after all, a contract with all the legal vulnerabilities of one.

    ReplyReply
    1
  30. wr says:

    @Kathy: “I’ll try not to spoil “The Dropout,” the drama based on the fraud Holmes perpetrated.”

    I’ve just started it. I’m watching it along with Super-Pumped about Travis Kalanick and Uber and We Crashed about WeWork. So far, the Dropout seems most sympathetic to its subject, painting her at least in the beginning as sort of spectrum-y and lost. Adam Nuemann of WeWork seems to be too opaque for those writers to get a handle on, so they’re really doing a deep dive into his wife, which is cruel, painful, and very entertaining. For pure fun Super-Pumped is the best, since Kalanick is a 100% Silicon Valley asshole — beautifully played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt — and we’re just waiting for that 5,000 pound weight to come crashing down on his head…

    ReplyReply
  31. CSK says:

    @Sleeping Dog:
    Every Republican who voices any criticism of Trump, no matter how well-based or well-phrased, is a RINO. Or a Commie stooge. Or a traitor. Or a Democrat in disguise.

    ReplyReply
    3
  32. CSK says:

    @Sleeping Dog:
    I think she’s well past her sell-by date, too. But if she can grift a bit of cash from a few diehards, she may prance around pretending to run for a while.

    ReplyReply
  33. a country lawyer says:

    @Kathy: Under both American and English Common Law, a contract which violates public policy is void. It would seem that any contact which compels a deponent to commit a felony would be unenforceable.

    ReplyReply
    2
  34. Gustopher says:

    @Kathy: The claim was always that without the meddling of Perot, Clinton wouldn’t have been president, and that he didn’t represent the will of the people. At least the loudly stated claim.

    In softer tones, there might have been whispers about Black people.

    I’m not old enough to remember if there were any claims of Carter being illegitimate, but there are still people who think Kennedy stole the election from Nixon because of dead people voting,

    ReplyReply
    1
  35. becca says:

    @Jim Brown 32: I’m watching the hearings now. She has got the patience of Job, too. Graham, Blackburn, and Cruz are truly shameless whores.

    ReplyReply
    2
  36. MarkedMan says:

    @Kathy:

    is there an exception to NDAs in legal matters

    I’ve signed a lot of NDAs. A lot. And every one had this exception.

    ReplyReply
  37. MarkedMan says:

    @Matt: As a Marylander in general and a Baltimorean specifically, I have my complaints against Larry Hogan but he is an old school Northeast Republican in the Bush Sr. vein.

    ReplyReply
    1
  38. CSK says:

    @MarkedMan: You can probably put Charlie Baker (Mass.), Phil Scott (Vermont), and, to some smaller degree, Chris Sununu (NH) in that slot as well.

    ReplyReply
    1
  39. a country lawyer says:

    @becca: I watched sadly, but without much surprise as my Senator, Marsha Blackburn continued to make a fool of herself on national television. She has embarrassed the State of Tennessee for years, first in the Congress and now in the Senate. Not only is she stupid but she’s also malicious- a dangerous combination. Unfortunately, a majority of the voters of our State seem to agree with her particular brand of nonsense.

    ReplyReply
    3
  40. gVOR08 says:

    @grumpy realist:

    Or the individual who wants to testify can make the argument that the NDA was signed under coercion

    The only time I was asked to sign an NDA I called a lawyer to ask for advice, since it included some non-compete stuff. He asked what I was getting in return. I said nothing, except I get to keep my job. He said sign it, that’s coercion, it’s unenforceable.

    ReplyReply
    1
  41. Flat Earth Luddite says:

    @becca:

    Graham, Blackburn, and Cruz are truly shameless whores

    Sun continues to rise in the East. Generalissimo Franco is still dead…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grfsaxQEbM8

    ReplyReply
    2
  42. Daryl and his brother Darryl says:

    Madeline Albright has passed.
    RIP to a great SoS.

    ReplyReply
    8
  43. Daryl and his brother Darryl says:

    @a country lawyer:
    As I think about retirement there is a lot about TN that appeals to me.
    But that “particular brand of nonsense” is off-putting.

    ReplyReply
  44. Sleeping Dog says:

    @becca:

    becca, that’s an insult to whores everywhere. After all, the rent boys and girls are just trying to make ends meet and that is far more ethical than whatever Graham, Cruz and Blackburn are up too.

    You may consider apologizing.

    ReplyReply
    2
  45. Sleeping Dog says:

    I wonder if he’ll testify under oath?

    After losing endorsement, Alabama representative claims Trump asked him to ‘remove Joe Biden’ from White House

    “President Trump asked me to rescind the 2020 elections, immediately remove Joe Biden from the White House, immediately put President Trump back in the White House, and hold a new special election for the presidency. As a lawyer, I’ve repeatedly advised President Trump that January 6 was the final election contest verdict and neither the U.S. Constitution nor the U.S. Code permit what President Trump asks. Period,” Brooks wrote.

    ReplyReply
    2
  46. Kylopod says:

    @Gustopher:

    The claim was always that without the meddling of Perot, Clinton wouldn’t have been president, and that he didn’t represent the will of the people. At least the loudly stated claim.

    Yes, and it’s a claim believed by a lot of people, including our own James Joyner (though I think he’s since clarified that he doesn’t think Perot’s presence on the ballot siphoned enough votes from Bush to throw the election to Clinton, but rather that Perot’s attacks on Bush damaged his popularity enough for him to lose). A surprising amount of liberals parrot the claim to this day.

    In any case, while the Perot Myth was used to question the legitimacy of Clinton’s win, it wasn’t the only reason they did. Their hatred of Clinton was more deep and personal, and I do think in a lot of ways the anti-Clinton smear industry was the beginning of much of what we see today, with everything from the Swift-boating of Kerry to Hillary’s emails to Hunter’s laptop. Of course Republican smear campaigns hardly began in the ’90s, but I think that’s when it became a kind of giant machine which the Republicans employ against any Democrat who comes along.

    ReplyReply
  47. Neil Hudelson says:

    For reasons I alluded to in a open forum comment a week or so back, I have had to work hard lately to avoid press inquiries due to my friendship and former working relationship with a guy involved in a pretty big story.

    Today I learned that if you request to remotely attend a federal courthouse hearing, the federal courthouse emails every other attendee your name, email address, and contact information. Just received a pdf with the names and emails of approximately 25 national reporters and at the very end “New Attendee: Neil Hudelson. *********@gmail.com. 555-555-1234.”

    Further confirmation that I could never be a covert operative.

    ReplyReply
  48. CSK says:

    The governor of Idaho has signed a bill very similar to the Texas bill prohibiting abortions after six weeks. This bill will also enable family members of the embryo to sue the doctor who performs the abortion. The abortion provider can be sued for a minimum of 20 grand within 4 years of the procedure being performed.

    The governor says he’s uneasy about the lawsuit provision because he fears it will be challenged in court.

    Rapists can’t sue, but their relatives can. Seriously? ‘Fraid so.

    Swell.

    ReplyReply
  49. Kathy says:

    @grumpy realist:
    @a country lawyer:
    @MarkedMan:

    In part I’m relieved such exceptions exist. But then, an employer could still sue and make the defendant have to incur legal fees and waste lots of time to get the suit dismissed. That if the employer won’t make allegations that the testimony went beyond what was asked, so the defendant volunteered information not their to disclose.

    ReplyReply
  50. Sleeping Dog says:

    @CSK:

    Better go get measured for the long red dress and the white bonnet.

    ReplyReply
    1
  51. CSK says:

    @Sleeping Dog:
    I know, I know. God, is that awful. Suppose a woman has an ectopic pregnancy? The embryo/fetus will certainly die, and so probably will the mother. No lives are saved.

    My cousin had to have a dead fetus surgically removed. It was a tragedy for her and her husband, since they desperately wanted the baby, but suppose she’d been forced to carry the corpse? She, like the fetus, would probably be dead now.

    I really like the part about how the rapist’s parents, grandparents, siblings, and who knows who else have rights the victim doesn’t.

    ReplyReply
  52. Sleeping Dog says:

    @CSK:

    I’ll let my cynicism show through, none of these anti-women actions that are occurring around the country will help Dems in competitive districts. A few more people may turn out is Suffolk Cty…

    ReplyReply
    1
  53. Kathy says:

    @CSK:

    I still see no logic in these kinds of laws. Can standing really be granted by legislative fiat, when no harm is suffered at all by the plaintiff?

    Imagine a law that allowed anyone to sue an airline for delays or cancellations, even those who’ve never traveled by air. It seems that absurd to me.

    ReplyReply
    1
  54. Kathy says:

    @Sleeping Dog:

    So, first the VP is the indisputable kingmaker, who can award the election to any candidate they want (making one’s self ask how stupid were Nixon and Gore, not to award themselves the presidency).

    And now some random congressman can rescind the election and give it to someone else? Just like that, or does ti have to be in exchange for an endorsement? Benito may as well have demanded Brooks fly to the Moon by flapping his arms.

    ReplyReply
  55. Kathy says:

    @Kylopod:

    There’s no question the 92 election would have played differently if Perot had not run, or if he had not achieved the popularity and traction he did (and not a single EV!), or if he hadn’t withdrawn from the race only to reenter it later on.

    It would have also played differently had Herr Buchanan not challenged Bush the elder for the GOP nomination. Or if some likely Democratic candidates had not been scared of their votes against Gulf War One in Congress and decided to skip one cycle. Or if Mario Cuomo had run for president. Or if the Gulf War hadn’t been followed by a rather mild recession. Or maybe even if the US government had made it clear to Saddam he should not invade Kuwait on pain of being forcibly kicked out and sanctioned for decades.

    There are too many possibilities (which makes alternate history pure speculation). There is no way to predict with certainty what would have happened given any of the above changes, or any combination thereof.

    ReplyReply
    3
  56. CSK says:

    @Kathy:
    If you’re talking about the part that enables the rapist’s relatives to sue the doctor, I suppose the “logic” behind it is that the doctor cruelly deprived grandpa/grandma, mom/dad, sis/bro, etc. of the opportunity to nurture and cherish the child.

    I’m surprised they don’t allow the rapist himself to sue. After all, it’s his kid. Right?

    ReplyReply
  57. Jen says:

    @CSK: Missouri had a bill that specifically *banned* the use of abortion to treat an ectopic pregnancy. They removed the provision after it created a MASSIVE outcry, so much so that the (Republican) Senate Majority Leader said that if it managed to make it from the House over to the Senate with that provision still in it, it was DOA.

    ReplyReply
    2
  58. Kathy says:

    @CSK:

    Not at all.

    For one thing, what relationship grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. have with a child is not a right in any sense of the word, nor is it guaranteed. I’d like to see some abusive jerk sue their child because they won’t let them see their grandchild (which now that I think of it, probably has happened).

    But things like the Texas law where anyone can sue any doctor who performs an abortion, any nurse who assists in one, or even the driver that takes the woman to the clinic. By my reading that means anyone at all, whether they are related to the woman in question or don’t even know her.

    Rationality demands that standing to sue requires having suffered some harm.

    ReplyReply
    1
  59. CSK says:

    @Jen:
    Did the imbeciles proposing this understand that the fetus in an ectopic pregnancy is DEAD after the first trimester???? That allowing the pregnancy to continue will, in all likelihood, kill the mother????

    ReplyReply
    2
  60. CSK says:

    @Kathy:
    Again, I’m guessing the “harm” the embryo’s paternal relatives suffer is that harm they suffer from the embryo being aborted. That’s their “standing.”

    ReplyReply
  61. Kathy says:
  62. Kathy says:

    @CSK:

    But then it would be the same harm if the woman had an abortion within the allowed six weeks, yet they’d have no standing to sue. Where’s the logic in that?

    ReplyReply
    1
  63. Kylopod says:

    @Kathy:

    There is no way to predict with certainty what would have happened given any of the above changes, or any combination thereof.

    But I really don’t think that’s what most people mean when they claim that Perot was a spoiler candidate. Typically, the argument is that as a conservative, he was likelier to draw votes from the Republican than the Democrat. That is the assumption that has not been borne out by the evidence. The exit polls showed Perot voters splitting about equally in which of the major-party candidates they’d have voted for if Perot hadn’t been in the race (with a significant chunk saying they wouldn’t have voted at all). In the period when Perot dropped out, Clinton was leading the polls with an absolute majority. Bush’s final Gallup approval rating before Election Day was 34%. The idea that an incumbent president with 34% approval would have been victorious without a third-party candidate splitting his party’s vote is simply not credible.

    Now, is it possible that had Perot not entered the race in the first place, Bush wouldn’t have ended up with such low approval? Sure, it’s possible. There’s just no particular reason to assume this would be the case. After his approval peaked from its Desert Storm high, it headed steadily downward, hurt by the recession which technically ended in 1991 but which left high unemployment that was still climbing by the summer of 1992. On Feb. 20, the day of the pivotal Larry King interview in which Perot said he’d run if people signed enough petitions, Bush’s approval was already down to 39%. It would be a stretch to suggest Perot’s attacks destroyed Bush’s popularity even if there wasn’t evidence Bush was damaged long before Perot was a candidate.

    At the state level, there’s just one state where the exit polls suggested Perot might have cost Bush the state, and that’s Ohio. But it was within the margin of error, and even if you handed the state to Bush it wouldn’t have been remotely sufficient for Bush to overcome Clinton’s large electoral lead.

    ReplyReply
    3
  64. Kathy says:

    @Kylopod:

    I’d argue many people are not good at predicting what they themselves will do, much less what they would have done. But this just adds more uncertainty to what little evidence there is.

    In any case, it’s an article of faith, and assuming correlation is causation. Something unusual happened, therefore everything turned out the way it did because of the anomaly.

    Bush the elder did look invincible in the wake of Desert Storm, even when he botched the aftermath and left a messy situation behind in Iraq. The crash of his popularity was spectacular.

    ReplyReply
  65. CSK says:

    @Kathy:
    You’re asking me to explain something that by definition is fraught with irrationality, and I can’t.

    ReplyReply
  66. Kathy says:

    @CSK:

    But you suffered for a while there trying to 🙂

    ReplyReply
  67. Jen says:

    @CSK:

    You are seriously expecting them to understand lady bits?*

    *An astonishing number of female Republican legislators vote for this claptrap. No, I don’t understand why either.

    ReplyReply
  68. CSK says:

    @Kathy:
    Sooner or later, even I have to throw in the towel.
    @Jen:
    I suppose was expecting too much.

    ReplyReply
  69. Kathy says:

    @Jen:

    “I had me five chillun and never had no ecotopic pregacy.”

    @CSK:

    One of my goals in life is to be as annoying as Socrates when asking questions. Hopefully one tenth as illuminating.

    ReplyReply
  70. CSK says:

    @Kathy:
    Do try to stay clear of the cup of hemlock. We’d miss you here.

    ReplyReply
    1
  71. Kathy says:

    @wr:

    So far, the Dropout seems most sympathetic to its subject, painting her at least in the beginning as sort of spectrum-y and lost.

    I haven’t seen the other shows, so I can’t comment on the relative portrayals. But at the start of Dropout, Holmes seems kind of precocious and smart. Later she turns manipulative, unethical, and overall more unpleasant every minute.

    ReplyReply
  72. Michael Cain says:

    @Kathy:

    Rationality demands that standing to sue requires having suffered some harm.

    Well, more complicated than that, at least in the US. States vary a lot, depending on what their constitutions and supreme courts say. Some agree with you, some not. The Texas state supreme court has long held that statutes granting anyone the right to sue are allowed by the state constitution. California too, I believe. Even at the federal level, there have been cases where individuals have been allowed to sue because they will “likely” or “probably” suffer injury in the future. In Massachusetts vs. EPA, five SCOTUS justices held that Massachusetts had standing because it was likely that they would eventually lose coastal land due to rising seas caused by climate change. Maybe in 30 years, maybe in 50, but eventually. Kennedy was the swing vote. CJ Roberts wrote an absolutely frothing-at-the-mouth dissent on the standing question. This term the SCOTUS heard West Virginia vs. EPA and some consolidated cases. The conventional wisdom right now is that the Court will overturn Massachusetts and that the easiest way is to change their mind on standing.

    ReplyReply

Speak Your Mind

*