What the blue slip actually promotes is a regionally balkanized judiciary in which states that are far out of step politically with the rest of the country have judges that are equally out of step. When coupled with the absurd rule that judges can time their retirements to allow a particular party to replace them, it makes it virtually impossible to disrupt a party's stranglehold over the judiciary of a state.
That would be bad from a good-government perspective without more, but in practice it also hurts Dems more than Reps in practice because the Reps have the Supreme Court and so far-left judges get overruled while far-right judges go completely unchecked.
Lastly, a system in which both Democratic and Republican district judges issue overwhelmingly conservative rulings (see the chart!) does not strike me as one progressives should really be in the business of defending.
Very interesting and well-written, Gabe. Thank you.
One sentence caught my attention and made me curious: “Perhaps one answer could be to codify blue slips in Senate rules, …that blue slips will only be respected for senators who made their recommendations through bipartisan screening commissions. “
Is the two-party nature of our system actually codified in other ways? I recall learning (perhaps from something you wrote?) that the framers sought to avoid parties and hoped to prevent them from arising, but that didn’t last beyond Washington’s presidency. Is that true?
Often, I’m left with the impression that the parties - both of them - wield inordinate power. Maybe one day you could do a piece on how parties work?im especially curious about what can be done to incentivize more compromise between the two we have without codifying out others?
I found this explanation of first-past-the-post vs ranked-choice voting very illuminating:
But I wonder whether our two-parties have “codified” themselves into permanence at the federal level? What, if anything, might “disrupt” them (ie, weaken their influence on our political process)? and would that be a good thing?
Senate rules are not codes of law; they only govern the internal procedure of the Senate. There are lots of ways in which Senate rules reflect the two-party system (rules about the prerogatives of the Majority and Minority Leader, for example). But the Senate can revise those rules whenever it feels like it.
This is an incredible piece. I've been putting together a project I've been calling "Democracy's Almanac". Very early stages but this piece provides a lot of perspective on the inner workings of a process, frankly, even I have only heard about since Booker refused to sign a Blue Slip. Subscribed and restacked
ALOHA....ON THE COCONUT WIRELESS..... .WELL SAID AND DONE.... .NOISE NOISE NOISE....WHERE IS THAT FRICKIN' FILES??????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? SH*T HEADS G.O.P. guardians of pedophilics.... REAL PELAU ARSE HOLES... SUE THEM BAGAS..... " When people refuse the cool cynicism of despair. Despair is peddled by the right to convince us that resistance is futile, and it is echoed by too many on the left who would rather sit back and say all is lost. CYNICISM asks nothing of us; HOPE demands everything. When people choose to act rather than surrender, that is what keeps democracy alive " TRUMP'S .G.O.P. guardians of pedophilics...... “SILENCE and EEAR is the TOOLS of a TYRANTS, wielded to suppress independent thought. Instead of silence and fear, let this moment fuel the fire that already burns at the heart of this place. A fire of righteous indignation at ABUSE of POWER. WELA KA HAO.... GOP LAPUWALE....THEY GOT TO BE VOTED OUT.. CLOWN SH*T SHOW OF GOP. guardians of pedophilics..
Federal judges have life time appointments. That should be sufficient to promote impartiality. I think adding the information about which President appointed them promotes an assumption of partiality. Any practice like the blue slip that promotes horse trading and/or bi-lateral cooperation is a plus to me.
I am interested in the graph that you posted showing the likelihood of a Conservate "vote" based on party affiliation. I'm not sure who is voting for what in this graph. Is this a Senatorial vote for a R/D nominee or a judge/justice decision and their party affiliation? In the former case, where the vote is the Senator's vote, it appears that a Democratic nominee for a District bench is MORE likely to get a Conservative Senator's vote than a Republican nominee. In the second case, it appears that a Democratic judge is more likely to make a conservative ruling than a Republican judge. Both seem counter-intuitive. Can you explain the chart a little more?
Gabe, you always do a great job in clear descriptions of complex issues. The "blue slip" article is fascinating!
Mark Taylor
Thanks, Mark!
This ain't it.
What the blue slip actually promotes is a regionally balkanized judiciary in which states that are far out of step politically with the rest of the country have judges that are equally out of step. When coupled with the absurd rule that judges can time their retirements to allow a particular party to replace them, it makes it virtually impossible to disrupt a party's stranglehold over the judiciary of a state.
That would be bad from a good-government perspective without more, but in practice it also hurts Dems more than Reps in practice because the Reps have the Supreme Court and so far-left judges get overruled while far-right judges go completely unchecked.
Lastly, a system in which both Democratic and Republican district judges issue overwhelmingly conservative rulings (see the chart!) does not strike me as one progressives should really be in the business of defending.
Very interesting and well-written, Gabe. Thank you.
One sentence caught my attention and made me curious: “Perhaps one answer could be to codify blue slips in Senate rules, …that blue slips will only be respected for senators who made their recommendations through bipartisan screening commissions. “
Is the two-party nature of our system actually codified in other ways? I recall learning (perhaps from something you wrote?) that the framers sought to avoid parties and hoped to prevent them from arising, but that didn’t last beyond Washington’s presidency. Is that true?
Often, I’m left with the impression that the parties - both of them - wield inordinate power. Maybe one day you could do a piece on how parties work?im especially curious about what can be done to incentivize more compromise between the two we have without codifying out others?
I found this explanation of first-past-the-post vs ranked-choice voting very illuminating:
https://www.cgpgrey.com/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom
But I wonder whether our two-parties have “codified” themselves into permanence at the federal level? What, if anything, might “disrupt” them (ie, weaken their influence on our political process)? and would that be a good thing?
Thanks for reading/considering.
Senate rules are not codes of law; they only govern the internal procedure of the Senate. There are lots of ways in which Senate rules reflect the two-party system (rules about the prerogatives of the Majority and Minority Leader, for example). But the Senate can revise those rules whenever it feels like it.
This is an incredible piece. I've been putting together a project I've been calling "Democracy's Almanac". Very early stages but this piece provides a lot of perspective on the inner workings of a process, frankly, even I have only heard about since Booker refused to sign a Blue Slip. Subscribed and restacked
ALOHA....ON THE COCONUT WIRELESS..... .WELL SAID AND DONE.... .NOISE NOISE NOISE....WHERE IS THAT FRICKIN' FILES??????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? SH*T HEADS G.O.P. guardians of pedophilics.... REAL PELAU ARSE HOLES... SUE THEM BAGAS..... " When people refuse the cool cynicism of despair. Despair is peddled by the right to convince us that resistance is futile, and it is echoed by too many on the left who would rather sit back and say all is lost. CYNICISM asks nothing of us; HOPE demands everything. When people choose to act rather than surrender, that is what keeps democracy alive " TRUMP'S .G.O.P. guardians of pedophilics...... “SILENCE and EEAR is the TOOLS of a TYRANTS, wielded to suppress independent thought. Instead of silence and fear, let this moment fuel the fire that already burns at the heart of this place. A fire of righteous indignation at ABUSE of POWER. WELA KA HAO.... GOP LAPUWALE....THEY GOT TO BE VOTED OUT.. CLOWN SH*T SHOW OF GOP. guardians of pedophilics..
Wonderful, as always, Gabe.
Well .... you've done it again!!! We are all smarter. Thanks!!!
Federal judges have life time appointments. That should be sufficient to promote impartiality. I think adding the information about which President appointed them promotes an assumption of partiality. Any practice like the blue slip that promotes horse trading and/or bi-lateral cooperation is a plus to me.
I am interested in the graph that you posted showing the likelihood of a Conservate "vote" based on party affiliation. I'm not sure who is voting for what in this graph. Is this a Senatorial vote for a R/D nominee or a judge/justice decision and their party affiliation? In the former case, where the vote is the Senator's vote, it appears that a Democratic nominee for a District bench is MORE likely to get a Conservative Senator's vote than a Republican nominee. In the second case, it appears that a Democratic judge is more likely to make a conservative ruling than a Republican judge. Both seem counter-intuitive. Can you explain the chart a little more?
Thank you Gabe for another great newsletter. I had heard of blue slips, but never knew how they work.
Gabe. I love your in depth study of certain practices!! If I wasn’t supporting ‘So What’ I would support you.
Jake Auchincloss is an apologist for Israel's war crimes and starving children to death. You will need a shower after you talk to him.