I'm looking frontward to the ACS panel on norms at the AALS meeting, though I await to come upward away grumpy. (There's also been a serial of posts on Lawfare dealing alongside norms together with the President. The link is to the homepage where all the posts are listed.)
Why grumpy? Because the focus is probable to locomote besides much on the President together with the pressure level placed past times his words (as the Lawfare posts argue, to a greater extent than than his actions) on constitutional norms. The overall Lawfare argument, which seems to me basically correct, is that the norms focused on the presidency own got non nevertheless been displaced past times other to a greater extent than worrisome ones. (Partly that's exactly because norms are instantiated inwards actions that own got consequences, together with hence -- or earlier together with hence -- rationalized inwards words.) But, for me, there's been a much longer term erosion of norms inwards the legislative process. (After all, I published "Constitutional Hardball" inwards 2003.)
It's non interesting (to me) to attribute responsibleness for that erosion (and indeed fifty-fifty engaging inwards attribution of responsibleness is a manifestation of partisanship). Rather, what's interesting to me is thinking almost what i does in media res, that is, when i believes that one's opponents are actively engaging inwards norm breaches (perhaps alongside the aim of constructing a novel prepare of norms). And, equally I've blogged before, I recollect that the exclusively reasonable reply is to adopt a tit-for-tat strategy (as I believe Republicans would enjoin they own got done) rather than to assert that the prior norms rest potent plenty (so that "temporary" departures from them tin locomote absorbed, which is, overall, the Lawfare posts' argument).
My grumpiness arises from a potent feel that "my" side inwards this is playing the patsy, refusing to fifty-fifty recollect almost tit-for-tat equally the politically responsible thing to do. I sympathize the Pozen-Fishkin declaration that the Democratic coalition's composition makes it politically hard for Democrats to engage inwards tit-for-tat -- simply political strategies develop inwards calorie-free of what coalition constituencies own got equally their program. So -- for activists rather than academics (or for academics inwards their activist clothing) -- it seems to me a error to own got tit-for-tat off the tabular array equally a affair of principle. (Of course, figuring out what tit-for-tat way in 2018 is difficult, though non impossible -- I've suggested breaching the norm of routinely giving unanimous consent inwards the Senate to a whole slew of things [and equally I sympathize it Senator Schumer has done about similar things, inside the constraints imposed past times his caucus]-- simply the possibilities for 2019 mightiness locomote quite different.)
Why grumpy? Because the focus is probable to locomote besides much on the President together with the pressure level placed past times his words (as the Lawfare posts argue, to a greater extent than than his actions) on constitutional norms. The overall Lawfare argument, which seems to me basically correct, is that the norms focused on the presidency own got non nevertheless been displaced past times other to a greater extent than worrisome ones. (Partly that's exactly because norms are instantiated inwards actions that own got consequences, together with hence -- or earlier together with hence -- rationalized inwards words.) But, for me, there's been a much longer term erosion of norms inwards the legislative process. (After all, I published "Constitutional Hardball" inwards 2003.)
It's non interesting (to me) to attribute responsibleness for that erosion (and indeed fifty-fifty engaging inwards attribution of responsibleness is a manifestation of partisanship). Rather, what's interesting to me is thinking almost what i does in media res, that is, when i believes that one's opponents are actively engaging inwards norm breaches (perhaps alongside the aim of constructing a novel prepare of norms). And, equally I've blogged before, I recollect that the exclusively reasonable reply is to adopt a tit-for-tat strategy (as I believe Republicans would enjoin they own got done) rather than to assert that the prior norms rest potent plenty (so that "temporary" departures from them tin locomote absorbed, which is, overall, the Lawfare posts' argument).
My grumpiness arises from a potent feel that "my" side inwards this is playing the patsy, refusing to fifty-fifty recollect almost tit-for-tat equally the politically responsible thing to do. I sympathize the Pozen-Fishkin declaration that the Democratic coalition's composition makes it politically hard for Democrats to engage inwards tit-for-tat -- simply political strategies develop inwards calorie-free of what coalition constituencies own got equally their program. So -- for activists rather than academics (or for academics inwards their activist clothing) -- it seems to me a error to own got tit-for-tat off the tabular array equally a affair of principle. (Of course, figuring out what tit-for-tat way in 2018 is difficult, though non impossible -- I've suggested breaching the norm of routinely giving unanimous consent inwards the Senate to a whole slew of things [and equally I sympathize it Senator Schumer has done about similar things, inside the constraints imposed past times his caucus]-- simply the possibilities for 2019 mightiness locomote quite different.)
No comments:
Post a Comment