I suppose I should be all over Donald Trump's arraignment today. I'm not going to be hanging on every moment of it. We don't even know what the precise charges are yet. A well-off ex-President and long-time Manhattan businessman with some of the best lawyers money can buy is going to get through the process just fine, under the harsh glare of public scrutiny and the lenses and microphones of Press ranging from People's World* to OANN, with CNN, Fox, NPR and the legacy papers and networks all bunched up near the middle. If there's anything even a little bit underhanded or askew in the process, one of them will jump on it and the rest will follow, like ducks clustering around an old lady with a pile of day-old bread.† I don't have to monitor it; they'll all do so for free, in between trying to sell me pillows, luxury cars, toothpaste, the supposedly unsullied reputation of high-toned corporate underwriters and/or a chance to seize control of the means of production (no thanks, way too much work; and they can forget about the big car payments, too).
Another little news item has caught my eye. It's a disturbing one. I'm a big fan of the decorous conduct of legislative proceedings: the people we elect to fool around with our laws ought to be able to wield words against one another like swordsmen -- without ever actually using blades. And I am no fan of gun control laws, largely because most of them are poorly thought out, based on inaccurate understanding of firearms and/or contrary to the Second Amendment or corresponding State constitutional protections (where they exist). So when three Tennessee Democrat lawmakers staged an ill-advised stunt in support of gun control, haranguing their peers through a bullhorn in that state's House chamber and leading the gallery crowd in chants, you might expect me to be all in favor of a vote of censure by their Republican-majority peers and a stern talking-to from the podium.
You're right. I would be. But that's not what the Tennessee House is doing. They're voting to expel the three Representatives. Toss 'em out. And I cannot countenance that.
A majority of the people of their districts who cared enough to vote had voted 'em in. Presumably they knew what they were getting, and they deserve to keep getting it. Raucous behavior deserves censure, not removal from office. The people they're representing can replace them if they see fit, come the next election. Vigorous debate is a fundamental pillar of this country's system of government and it has been known to get out of hand -- and to get reined in, however venomously. Bouncing the Representatives stymies any cooling-off or debate -- and the state will probably have to run special elections to replace them.‡ In the meantime, Tennessee's House GOP supermajority looks even more like a rubber stamp and less like a representative, deliberative body. Debate is better than shouting through a portable PA system, but removal of dissenting voices is much worse. It's like cutting off a person's head to cure a toothache: while they're not feeling any pain after the procedure, the wider effect is obviously undesirable.
________________________
* The successor to the old Daily Worker, apparently now not even a weekly. My goodness, you don't think the USSR had been propping them up, do you?
† You're not supposed to feed them bread. It's not good for them, and can leave them stuffed full of food that isn't very nourishing. Any similarity between this and the previous footnote, well....
‡ Nope. Not how that works in Tennessee. County or city-level officials appoint replacements, who will serve until the next regular general election. There's nothing to prevent the an ousted Representative from being appointed to or running foe election to the job again, either.
BUILDING A 1:1 BALUN
4 years ago
3 comments:
Re the Tennessee House, I think you have a point -- this smacks of political theater on both sides, and kicking 3 members out seems extreme. However . . . all legislative bodies have the right to make their own rules and enforce them on members who violate them. I can think of at least one precedent: the US Senate in 1946 refused to seat Senator Theodore Bilbo on his reelection, largely because of his loony racism. Presumably the citizens of Mississippi wanted him to be their Senator but the Senate kicked him out anyhow.
Also, it seems to me that debate-by-bullhorn is becoming more and more popular, especially in university settings (as recent events at the Stanford Law School illustrate). It's appalling to think that it's now spreading to legislatures. I agree with you that the first response ought to be censure and "a good talking-to" . . . but can we be sure it will prevent these clowns and others like them from doing it again? If not, what then?
But are they indeed clowns, or duly elected legislators in the grip of an excess of passion? The outburst might not have been prevented but it was, in fact, cut short. Further action against them past a normal rebuke for legislative misbehavior simply creates a Streisand Effect and certainly has at least the appearance of an attempt to suppress debate.
JKS,We can't punish them for what they might do. Throwing them out because they went to an extreme measure is equally extreme.
Roberta,some times I think I read just for the footnotes.
Post a Comment