Talking Points Memo just celebrated 25 years of online political reporting. It’s a “go-to” source for many, if not most, political observers. Heather Cox Richardson, among others, frequently cites publisher Josh Marshall, and TPM is one of my trusted sources for insightful political analysis.
In a recent column, Marshall proposed a basis for evaluating Senators, and I strongly agreed with his criteria for “purging” those who don’t pass his tests. He identifies a series of issues that he says can give voters “a clear indication of whether they are serious about confronting the challenge of the moment or battling back from Trumpism.” He analogizes the process to a status interview you might hold if you were a new manager hired to turn around a failing company–a “sit down” with every employee to determine whether they’re part of the solution or part of the problem.
Marshall identifies five issues. The first is the filibuster. He writes that lawmakers who support keeping the filibuster “are not serious about moving the country forward in any positive direction.” Support for the filibuster means that Senator should be primaried and removed from office, because absolutely none of the legislation that is required to repair America’s government can happen with the filibuster in place. As he writes, “If you support the filibuster that means that your response to Trumpite autocracy is to do nothing and hope for the best. That’s unacceptable and you need to go.”
The second identified issue is Supreme Court reform. Marshall notes that it is only within the past two or three years that he has reluctantly come to that conclusion, which has been forced by the corruption of the Court majority.
They have cut free not only from precedent but from any consistent or coherent theory of the Constitution, no matter how wrongheaded. The purpose of the high court is not to run the country. It is to render decisions on points of constitutional and legal ambiguity in a good faith and broadly consistent manner. It is now engaged in purely outcome-driven reasoning, mixing and matching doctrines and modes of jurisprudence depending on the desired ends, with the aim of furthering autocratic and Republican rule. That is the heart of the corruption. Passing laws doesn’t matter if they can and will be discarded simply because six lifetime appointees don’t like them. That’s a perversion of the constitutional order. I know this one is hard to swallow for many people. It doesn’t come easily to me either. But the facts of the situation and fidelity to the Constitution require it.
Like Marshall, this conclusion was difficult for me, but the sheer intellectual dishonesty of the majority has convinced me that we will not return to the rule of law without substantial Court reform.
Those first two criterions are Marshall’s “most important,” because without them, the next three won’t happen.
Number three is (finally!) making DC and Puerto Rico into states. He acknowledges that this isn’t as essential as the first two, but it’s very important, and it’s the right thing to do. DC and Puerto Rico should in fact be states. It really is bizarre–and unfair–that citizens living in two U.S. jurisdictions simply don’t have the political rights that every other American enjoys.
We now know that Marshall’s number four is especially important. He calls it “clearing the law books.”
As we’ve seen over the last year, the U.S. federal code is full of laws which assume the sitting president broadly supports the federal Constitution, civic democracy and the best interests of all American citizens. We know now that that is a dangerous assumption. There are lots of laws which grant the president vast powers if things get super weird. And the president is in charge of deciding whether they’re weird. A lot of this is the dirty work of the corrupt Republican majority on the Supreme Court. But a lot of the laws are genuinely far too ambiguous. We need to change all of those laws. That involves potentially creating different harms by weakening the presidency. There are cases when you want a president to be able to move expeditiously and effectively in emergencies. Laws will have to be revised with that contrary danger in mind. But right now the balance is far too much in the direction of presidential power.
And number five? Here, Marshall proposes something near and dear to my heart: outlawing gerrymandering with a federal legal framework governing how maps can be legitimately drawn.
As Marshall acknowledges, it’s not an exhaustive list. But it would be a strong beginning.
These are great goals. How to achieve them is the problem when the very entity that has the power to make the changes is the one with the power to make the rules for making the changes… and thus changing the rules in the future.
As to adding Puerto Rico and D.C. as states. Should we also include Guam and US Virgin Islands? They are also territories.
i’m not sure about point number one. I once read a science fiction book where the premise was that when government gets too efficient people get crushed. The core of the story was about an agent from the bureau of sabotage (BUSAB). When a planetary government got too efficient it was his job to go in and make sure things would get balled up. I know the current level of dysfunction is beyond belief, but it’s scary what could’ve happened if somebody wasn’t forced to do a little compromise. The problem might not be the filibuster Rule, but the two party system. But that brings its own problems and dysfunctions.
I’ve been thinking about what comes next too. I suggested the same things that Marshall did in my previous, non-fiction books I wrote and published in the mid-20teens. But now we are politically constipated and in a perverse way, Trumpism will be the kind of laxative we’ve needed for a while.
When this monstrosity is over, we simply cannot work toward getting “back to where we were”. This will be the time to actually “build back better”. In my opinion, immediately adjunct to giving SCOTUS an engine overhaul is overturning Citizens United v. FEC and getting money, dark or light, out of our political machinations. Add to that making our bureaucracy work better in every way. The idea of DOGE was good, except it was operated by stupid, greedy, incompetent, power-mad lunatics like Voght and Musk.
Imagine what a Congress would look like without gerrymandered districts or dark money influencing elections. No Jim Jordan. He could go back to hiding his involvement with the OSU sex scandal full time. No Lauren Boebert. She could return to her barkeeping and public sexual affairs. No Chuck Shumer. He can become a full-time hand-wringing platitude writer. No Ted Cruz, the slimiest of the lot. And so many more … I’d love to see many more women in our governments at all levels. Last week is a good start.
Ah, but to dream …
In addition to ending gerrymandering, I would eliminate the electoral college.
While I agree that ending the filibuster is needed, that was Trump’s solution to ending the shutdown—do away with the filibuster so this Republican Senate never has to work cooperatively with Democrats and/or Independents on anything again. That may have happened if those 8 senators had not crossed the aisle. As I understand it, Republicans were reluctant to do that because the filibuster has provided them cover from having to vote publicly on unpopular issues. And Democrats are understandably reluctant to end the filibuster with the current administration in power.
I like the ideas in the original post. It seems like a good start.
The Senate has been a problem for ages – long before our current troubles. Robert Caro’s Master of the Senate sets out the Senate’s problems, and the filibuster has enabled those problems.
We need to get over the excuse of how hard it is to amend the Constitution. Terms limits for the Supreme Court and Congress. Get rid of the Electoral College. Karl Rove figured out to turn our Electoral College to the control of a minority party.
Impeach Justices Thomas and Alito and Chief Justice Roberts. Yeah, I know it would be harder to make a case for Roberts, but his attacks on The Voting Rights Act has done us serious harm.
As for statehood, if Puerto Rico, why not Guam?
A very good list, which as mentioned above, might include the Electoral College. But then we get into other weak links in this beautiful experiment, as in the Senate. Two Senators representing 40 million people has the same influence on state issues as two representing a million or so? While the minority has to be protected by some representation, the majority shouldn’t be ignored either, at the expense of that minority. And why not conduct national – federal – elections where a simple majority wins?
I agree with Marshall’s ideas,. In order to do those things, though the Democrats have to get and maintain a super majority for two full Presidential terms. The odds of that happening are not good, but not zero.
It might be the hardest thing we’ve ever had to do. I don’t think it can be done with the current leadership. We don’t need any more strongly worded letters in response to outrageous activities by our President.
Am I hearing that the people want a fair democracy in this country when we’re an oligarchy?
Josh completely misses the part about money’s influence in our political structure. The system is so corrupted that it is entirely dysfunctional. Unless we, the people, contain the oligarchy and remove money from the equation, we accomplish nothing. It’s all pie in the sky…
Even our SCOTUS is corrupted, and now our free press and social media are all owned by billionaire oligarchs, many of whom are Zionists.
To be clear, the Oligarchy IS the minority, so they use their money and power to oppress the people from rising and making changes – the changes Josh wants to see happen. None of it happens without getting cash and the oligarchs out of our government. Where do you think those politicians go once they leave their public positions? Yep, they go to work for the donors whom they helped while in office.
An addendum! I’ve been thinking about the Senate and I have an idea about rebalancing that body. Let me know if it makes sense. All states automatically get two. After that, over a six million person base, every additional five million in population would gain a state one additional Senator.
The all out assault on the American ideals expressed in our country’s founding documents has revealed weaknesses that must be addressed if we are to achieve a state of healthy balance. But understand that no system will be entirely immune to attacks from hostile forces. And hostile forces will immediately attack by fostering disunity among those trying to institute reform.
I think Marshall’s approach is sound. Agree to support a few important reforms. Require candidates to state publicly that they support those reforms. Vote only for those candidates who do so and who hold to those promises. That will get the ball rolling. But all of us must keep our focus on supporting those reforms.
If we refuse to cooperate because other worthwhile reforms that we favor have to wait, we will play into the hands of those hostile forces.
Don’t try to do it all at once. Maintain focus and unity. Know when to stop debating and declare your support for the common goals. Debating now is fine, but don’t get so devoted to one goal that you can’t support others.
He has correctly identified what is necessary. He speaks truth to power. He has clarified what’s stopping government efforts to solve our problems. Now will we hold our representatives feet to the fire?
I love it!
Happily, we won’t have to worry about McConnell, but then is hardly an angel. Not that we need “angels” in congress.
That’s a good list, but the first goal next year is to take back both houses of Congress. We cannot afford to risk that.
I disagree about the filibuster. Maybe 60 is too high a bar, but the simplest majority is so dangerous. One run or one point may be adequate for sporting events, but would we want to go to war on the basis of a single vote? I would think, a significant minority could declare an issue a Matter of State, requiring a significant majority to pass specific legislation.
Yes, to DC and PR as states, but what about Guam and the VIs?
While we are at it, should we do away with RI because it is geographically small and WY because it is so tiny in population? Should our goal be a limit on the number of states? 50 and 52 are OK, but would 57 be inconvenient?
court time line of appointments. amend laws that leave loopholes to argue,amend as needed. fillibuster,leave it, gerrymandering. screw it, popular democratic voting. the prez is a single figure. he has to be just a signature in the final rule. tear down the golden beast next to the dirty white house. tax the rich,if you dont like that,leave…
In mathematics there is a principle in proofs: i.e. necessary and sufficient.
What this means is that any steps included are necessary for the overall proof to work, and that collectively they are sufficient to establish the proof. Elegance is eliminating any steps that turn out to not be necessary; i.e. including ONLY those steps that are truly necessary.
My opinion is that Marshall’s list is NOT sufficient to achieve the goal. I also think that there may be some steps listed that are not truly necessary. Which in turn means that there are other unmentioned steps that are more necessary.
Statehood for Guam and the Virgin Islands? Guam is essentially a forward military base. Actual population is a few thousand. Everyone else are transient military personnel. Be serious! Would they be served by being incorporated into Hawaii? How about the Virgin Islands as part of Puerto Rico?
Statehood for DC has been debated for years. It was conceived to be the administrative hub of the United States and was established as apolitical. It should probably remain that way. On the other hand, there a lot of people living in the District that are NOT involved in the Government in any way, and they are not being represented under the current arrangement. This is the very definition of a dilemna!
Peggy has made an interesting suggestion about increasing senatorial representation as states pass certain thresholds of population. Based on 50 states and a total population of 350 million, it would suggest a Senate of 108 members, but that doesn’t account for the actual distribution of population among the 50 states. The actual number would be considerably higher.
My first step is to start with SCOTUS. The constitution does not establish the size of the court as nine. I think that there are 15 Judicial Districts in the US. Each should have a Supreme Justice as its supervisor. Supreme Justices should serve a fixed term, and terms need to be staggered so that two are appointed after each congressional election, but not simultaneously; i.e. one in each year of the Congress.
Couple things… First, I think Todd’s suggestion about reforming money’s influence on your politics is critical. I’d put it ahead of the statehood issue.
Second, reforming the filibuster is critical. You have a non-functional government right now, and it’s been that way for a long time. The Republicans rely on this. They feed their base the notion that government can’t help them and this builds their hatred towards it. You must return to a place where legislation can actually be passed, where votes have real meaning. For now, legislators can vote in the way that they think works best for them politically rather than what’s best for their constituents, safe in the knowledge that it’s meaningless.
I think outlawing gerrymandering should be roght up there at the top of the list. As for statehood, I agree Puerto Rico, should absolutely be a state. As for DC, I agree they need representation but I think rather than granting statehood to what is basicly little more than a city, I think DC should simply be absorbed into the state of Maryland, and Congress should forfeit all control of the district. Residents would receive one or two district conressional reps, depending on population and would vote in elections for senators of Maryland.
Kathie, DC as a state would have a population bigger than Wyoming and Vermont. The District has its own personality and sensibility that is different from that of either Maryland or Virginia. It should be a state.