Re: Reforms

1

You could always just not tax corporations at all, which some economists favor. I'd be OK with that as part of a package rolling back corporate privileges and fixing the capital gains tax to match income taxes.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 07-16-14 1:51 PM
horizontal rule
2

I often find myself facing a choice between teeth and squirrels.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 07-16-14 2:04 PM
horizontal rule
3

I don't ordinarily think of Gawker media properties as thought leaders on public policy, but some kind of reform of on-call employment is so obviously the right thing to do, they deserve credit for talking about it when no one else will. And for Democratic candidates, I bet a firm and well-publicized commitment to do this would bring more nonvoters out of the woodwork than raising the minimum wage to $15.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 07-16-14 2:06 PM
horizontal rule
4

3: Yes. Also, the benefits that make full-time work 'too expensive' for the employer should be earned proportionally to all the hours worked.


Posted by: clew | Link to this comment | 07-16-14 3:51 PM
horizontal rule
5

I imagine some kind of freely-given-out IRS-integrated time-clock that calculates and determines wages, not only preventing wage-theft but also integrating EITC as a paycheckly rather than yearly payout. But I suppose tripling Wage & Hours enforcers would work about as well.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 07-16-14 4:13 PM
horizontal rule
6

But I suppose tripling Wage & Hours enforcers would work about as well.

Criminal prosecution (felony larceny or fraud, whichever carries a longer sentence) would also do the trick.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 07-16-14 4:21 PM
horizontal rule
7

What if, instead of dicking around with the corporate tax code, we simply nationalized the means of production?


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 07-16-14 6:10 PM
horizontal rule
8

7: You'll have to take my handguns-cotton-candy-and-free-pony factory from my cold, dead fingers, hippie!


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 07-16-14 7:39 PM
horizontal rule
9

3: this is a problem that could be fixed easily with strong labor unions.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 07-16-14 8:03 PM
horizontal rule
10

Or probably shitty ones that actually existed.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 07-16-14 8:09 PM
horizontal rule
11

G. Gordon Libby 2.0.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 07-16-14 8:12 PM
horizontal rule
12

I wonder if he ever met Liddy Dole.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 07-16-14 8:16 PM
horizontal rule
13

The article does mention pineapples.


Posted by: DaveLMA | Link to this comment | 07-17-14 5:31 AM
horizontal rule
14

On OP.1, although I'd love to get some of those dinosaurs out, I wonder if in the current environment (where Republican justices aren't even avoiding the appearance of nonpartisanship in any substantive way) this would make decisions a lot more evanescent. If 12 years passed with Republicans in office, by the end, the recent appointees espousing the latest Federal Society line would have a supermajority.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 07-17-14 6:48 AM
horizontal rule
15

14: and the same in reverse, though. After 8 years of Democrats in office, you might not get a Bush v. Gore.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 07-17-14 7:26 AM
horizontal rule
16

15: Yes on Bush v. Gore, but Dems don't nominate justices with anywhere near the aggressivity of GOP - huge deference to corporate interests, etc. (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/junejulyaugust_2014/features/thrown_out_of_court050661.php?page=all is extremely depressing, although it doesn't AFAICT put our current four in disrepute.)


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 07-17-14 7:35 AM
horizontal rule
17

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/junejulyaugust_2014/features/thrown_out_of_court050661.php?page=all


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 07-17-14 7:35 AM
horizontal rule
18

16: Dems also don't have a pipeline for grooming judicial prospects like that associated with the Federalist Society. Despite representing minority opinions on a whole lot of subjects the right is able to hold back the Democrats because the conservative movement has organizations and systems in place that the left only vaguely echos in an incoherent and unsystematic way. The network of right wing think tanks and wingnut welfare organizations is tightly bound in a way that, e.g. CAP and Moveon are not.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 07-17-14 7:54 AM
horizontal rule
19

I think you've made the point in 18 before. It is wrong. There is no absence of a pipeline of well-groomed potential Democratic judicial nominees. This bench is often way more pro-corporate than people here would like but that represents the actual state of the Democratic Party.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 07-17-14 8:00 AM
horizontal rule
20

I will say that there is a serious problem where being left (or left-ish) on economic issues is secondary or tertiarary to the concerns of mainstream legal "liberals" in a way that's been pretty destructive. Breyer for example was an antitrust professor, and while he didn't have the most conservative possible views on the subject he (like most people in his field) basically bought hardcore into law and economics libertarian bullshit in analyzing the economy. Sotomayor's Second Circuit business decisions were routinely pro-corporate, etc. I expect this to change somewhat as the party and world becomes somewhat more economically liberal in the wake of 2008, but it may take a generation or two. To be clear, (a) this represents the actually-existing stste of the Democratic party and (b) the four liberals on the Court are way way better on these issues than the four conservatives, but that's starting from an abysmal baseline.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 07-17-14 8:15 AM
horizontal rule
21

OK, delete Democrats and insert Progressives. Is there a progressive judicial pipeline I'm not aware of? AFAICT there is nothing on the left even vaguely like the conservative movement within the Republican party when it comes to organization.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 07-17-14 8:17 AM
horizontal rule
22

21 to 19


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 07-17-14 8:19 AM
horizontal rule
23

OK, delete Democrats and insert Progressives. Is there a progressive judicial pipeline I'm not aware of?

I'll stipulate no, and argue that it's a good thing. What sets the recent generation of "conservative" jurists apart is not just their extremist ideology, but their judicial radicalism: willingness to ignore longstanding precedent, rewrite settled law on the flimsiest of pretexts, employ post facto reasoning to get to desired outcomes, etc. While I obviously prefer my federal appeals court justices liberal (even very liberal), I don't want them to be a mirror image of Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen. It's not that I'm concerned about backlash (Lemieux has convinced me that it's a red herring). It's that judicial temperment and jurisprudential modesty is important to the constitutional order.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 07-17-14 8:28 AM
horizontal rule
24

20 -- There is a general problem that the Democratic Party isn't as progressive as it should be, but whatever the federalist society does in terms of providing Republican nominees who hold views consistent with the mainstream of that party is done by a variety of Democratic organizations. There's not a significant "progressive" judicial pipeline further to the left of the mainstream Democratic party for the simple reason that such candidates wouldn't be nominated by the President and couldn't be confirmed.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 07-17-14 8:33 AM
horizontal rule
25


And yes, I acknowledge that you could have a federal bench that is less pro-corporate without being jurisprudentially radical. I'm just saying that the absence symmetry between the Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society (which is not, on the whole, excessively pro-corporate) is no bad thing.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 07-17-14 8:36 AM
horizontal rule
26

I basically agree with 23, but a hypothetical world in which you had Democratic nominees who were much more progressive on business and labor issues is possible (if the party and President would accept it) without needing to appoint lawless ideologues.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 07-17-14 8:38 AM
horizontal rule
27

26 before seeing 25. Sounds like we agree.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 07-17-14 8:38 AM
horizontal rule
28


To make my point more concretely, your modal Republican would celebrate a SCOTUS ruling that found "right to work" to be constitutionally mandated, while I (and probably most potential Democratic judicial nominees) would be disturbed by a ruling that found card check unionization to be constitutionally mandated.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 07-17-14 8:44 AM
horizontal rule
29

26: comity


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 07-17-14 8:47 AM
horizontal rule
30

I feel like the general attitude in 23, as reasonable as it is in general*, is part of the problem. It leaves us in the same position as moderate democratic politicians/media presentation does, namely, one side being moderate procedural liberals and the other side being completely demented far right authoritarians. And since compromises of some sort are inevitable (even with Republicans as they are now) centrist/moderate proceduralism ends up with right wing outcomes, and often pretty extreme ones.


*(As in, for most things and for this thing too in anything approaching sane circumstances.)


Posted by: MHPH | Link to this comment | 07-17-14 9:29 AM
horizontal rule
31

What's the most recent seven-or-more-majority decision that was ridiculously pro-corporate? I had been assuming AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion was an example, but it was 5-4.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 07-17-14 11:03 AM
horizontal rule
32

I'd far prefer stupid, lawless liberals on the Supreme Court to even the most learned and reasonable conservatives.


Posted by: dz | Link to this comment | 07-17-14 11:14 AM
horizontal rule
33

32 -- this term? The Halliburton and CVS cases come to mind as pretty representative of the consensus spirit on the Court.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 07-17-14 11:29 AM
horizontal rule
34

That was to 31. I also basically agree with 32 but that doesn't mean we should want stupid or lawless liberals or that we can't do better than that.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 07-17-14 11:31 AM
horizontal rule