Isaac Laquedem

Justice Hillary Clinton? Yes, but only in January

How might the standoff between the President and the Senate Judiciary Committee over the Supreme Court vacancy play out?  One of the illuminati of the Laquedemimonde forwarded to me this interesting article in Washington Monthly which lays out three ways (one being a recess appointment) in which the Democrats could escalate the war and the Republicans could riposte.  The writer concludes by asking, with a bit of forlorn hopefulness, that the members of the Senate simply grow up and act their age.

Which outcomes are possible depends on which party captures the White House and on whether the Republicans keep control of the Senate, and it is here that the author misses a possibility.  The author plays out what might occur if Secretary Clinton wins the election and faces a Republican Senate, but overlooks what might happen if (say) Mr. Trump wins the election but the voters give control of the Senate to the Democrats.  The delightful wrinkle here is that incoming senators take office on January 3, but the new president won't take office until January 20.  So it's possible that from January 3 to January 19 the Democratic party will hold both the White House and the Senate.  As the majority party the Democrats could perhaps amend the Senate rules to restrict the filibuster for judicial nominees (the rules are opaque to me on this point), leading to the delightful possibility that next January 3, as President-elect Trump (substitute your own favorite Republican if you wish) is pondering whom he will nominate to the vacant seat, President Obama sends in his nomination.  The Senate Judiciary Committee, under its new leadership, waives hearings and on a January 4 party line vote sends her nomination to the full Senate, where a simple majority is sufficient to confirm her.  I say "her" because I can envision the President, in this extreme circumstance, nominating Hillary Clinton.  The timing could work out for her to be the first justice to take office in the Trump administration.

Isaac to the Judiciary Committee: No welfare for people who won't work, including you

Last week Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina said, "I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president." Senator John Cornyn, the majority whip, said that he would not even meet with a Supreme Court nominee: "I don't see the point in going through the motions, if we know what the outcome is to be."  Senators Cornyn and Charles Grassley, members of the Judiciary Committee, signed on to the letter from the Republicans on the committee stating that the committee would not hold hearings on any nominee that President Obama would propose.

In 2012, Senator Burr cosponsored Senate Bill 3397, which would prohibit states from waiving the work requirements for welfare recipients.  Senator Grassley also cosponsored that bill.  In 2002, Senator Cornyn supported a work requirement for welfare recipients, that is, a rule that welfare recipients who refused to work shouldn't receive money from the government for not working.

Being slightly Calvinist at heart,  I support the idea of withholding government money from people who are able and willing to do their jobs, but who simply don't want to.  Senators Burr, Grassley, and Cornyn are on record as agreeing with me.  Because they don't want to do part of their jobs, they should be willing to rebate a portion of their salary to the United States Treasury, perhaps 15% or so, as a sign of good faith.  If they really don't want to perform a core function of the jobs they were elected to do, then they can give up the public payroll altogether. 

Senator McConnell: instead of shortening Obama's to-do list, lengthen his term

Senator Mitch McConnell proposes that, since President Obama has less than a year to serve, he should not fill Antonin Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court, but should leave it to his successor to nominate the new justice so that the will of the people can be heard.  There's an alternate solution that Senator McConnell should heartily endorse, which is to move next year's inauguration from January 20 back to March 4 (the traditional date), which will make the President's remaining term longer than one year.  In the alternative Mr. McConnell should propose to repeal the 22nd Amendment (the "No more Roosevelts" amendment that limited presidents to two terms) so that the voters can show whether they're willing to give Mr. Obama a third term.  Problem solved!

For Presidents' Day, buy a candidate?

One delightful, unintentional irony of the Republican debate on Saturday was that in between the candidates' jousting about the influence of money on politics, the commercials were all for Presidents' Day sales.   None of the Temples of Commerce offered to sell me an entire candidate, however.

Kesey Square: Sometimes the Eugene City Council needs a vacation, or a great notion

The center of Eugene features an small (4400 square foot) city-owned open space officially known as Broadway Plaza and commonly called Kesey Square, after the statue of Oregon author Ken Kesey that's prominent there. Kesey Square hosts films, performance art, and festivals; it also hosts, not so intentionally, transients and street people.  A Eugene group has proposed to buy the plaza and build a five-floor building with stores on the ground floor and 35 to 40 apartments above.  In response, the city council invited anyone interested to submit redevelopment proposals for the plaza, which were due on January 15.

The Eugene city council faces two small glitches in its redevelopment effort.  One is the combined political will of the Eugenians (?) who love the quirky plaza even with its problems.  The other is a clause in the deed by which the Eugene urban renewal agency gave the park to the city.  Eugene is no stranger to old deeds getting in the way of new projects, and those old cases are about to get some new company.

When the urban renewal agency gave the property to the city, it stated in the deed that it was dedicating the land to the public for a park.  The word "dedication" is a magic word not just for candidates and cornerstones, but also for conveyancing.  The street in front of your house was likely not just given, but dedicated, to the public by a long-gone developer.  Chapman Square and Lownsdale Square in downtown Portland were dedicated to the public.  The fun with dedication is that Oregon law regulates how cities can undedicate (the technical word is "vacate") dedicated public streets, avenues, boulevards, alleys, and plats -- and how to vacate "any public square or other public place."  ORS 271.080 allows a city to vacate a public place if enough neighbors petition to vacate the place.  ORS 271.130 allows a city to vacate a public place at a public hearing without a petition from the neighbors, unless -- and here's the hitch -- unless the owners of a majority of the nearby area object in writing.  The Knower of All Things says that some of the nearby property owners will object, and the city council won't find them to be merely merry pranksters.

Other courts fine defendants; Gearhart fines the judge

Many Oregon cities have a municipal court, a court in which small offenses are tried to a judge or jury of six.  (Portland gave up its municipal court in 1971.)  Some municipal courts are courts of record (meaning that they must record their proceedings and comply with some other state requirements), with lawyers as judges; others are not courts of record and can engage any responsible adult to be the judge.  Cities that choose to have a municipal court adopt ordinances to establish the court and set down the rules.

Gearhart, that placid coastal village, has a municipal court with an interesting twist that I can't imagine the city fathers and mothers intended when they wrote their code.  If you should appear before the municipal court and ask for a jury trial, the city fines the judge $30.  It's true!  Here's the code section, or check the PDF of the code for yourself (page 53):

§ 32.43 COURT COSTS.

In all cases tried before a jury in the Municipal Court, the Municipal Judge shall add the costs and disbursements of the trial and be fined a sum not exceeding $30.  

That may be what they offered, but I'm not ready to buy

The AL and the NL play the same game; the Democrats and the Republicans don't

I watched part of last night's Democratic debate with a longtime friend and liberal activist (we were both in Washington Park when Eugene McCarthy spoke there in 1968).  He supports Secretary Clinton, and I support Senator Sanders, but we both agreed that we were hearing a debate of ideas and not just sound bites.  It occurred to me that we were watching the equivalent of a mid-level playoff game; in fact, our process to select a president is similar to a sports playoff.  Candidates are divided into the Left League and the Right League, go through some prequalification process (organizing a committee, raising some money, and giving trial-balloon speeches), then start the playoffs.  Iowa and New Hampshire eliminate about half the contenders, Super Tuesday eliminates about half of the remaining contenders, and the ones that remain battle it out for the championships of their respective leagues (or in this case, parties).  The Left League and Right League champions then face off in November for the title.

One difference between sports playoffs and this year's campaign struck me.  In sports playoffs, all of the contenders are playing the same game.  They may have different styles -- one football team might pass a lot and another might prefer to run -- but the teams all share the same basic objective, which is to outscore the opponents.  By contrast, this year the Left League and the Right League are aiming at different goals.  Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton talked about their experience in foreign and domestic policy, each trying to persuade the audience that he or she was the better and more experienced candidate.  They both larded their speeches with facts and figures. 

The Republican campaign has been the opposite.  The Candidates of the Right are wooing the voters by bragging about how little they know about government.  Two of the four leading Republican candidates have never held elective office, and a third is a newly-minted senator.  Their campaigns play up how little they've been sullied by Washington.  That's akin to a football coach saying that his team deserves to win the championship because the players haven't been spoiled by too much time on the gridiron.

Thus the quirk in the 2016 election.  The two parties are not only not on the same field, but they aren't even playing the same game.