Fixing the Court

 A lot of discussion among Democrats over what to do about a Supreme Court with a 6-3 conservative majority.

I'd suggest one strategy not much discussed, which assumes Biden/Harris win and the Democrats gain a Senate majority:

• end the filibuster in the Senate (might be problematic, given their moderates who might be reluctant).
• spend time fixing the vulnerabilities in important legislation, like ACA and Clean Air, etc. 

My theory is this: over the last 4 years and more, conservatives have filed enough court cases and the Trump administration has changed enough administrative rules that good lawyers can identify the weak points.  Rather than rely on defending rules in the court, preempt the challenges by fixing them.  If the challenge is that the agency, EPA, etc., has exceeded its authority under the law, change the law to provide the authority.  If the challenge is that Congress has exceeded its authority under the Constitution, change the law to rest on a firmer basis.

What's iffy about this strategy is, of course: Roe v Wade. Although polls suggest a majority support its general outline, trying to legislate it would be like gun control.  The fierce minority would prevail over the majority.  I could suggest a compromise which appears reasonable to me, but it's a matter of principle for the opponents.  What would my hopeless compromise be?  Clinton used to say "legal, safe, and rare".  I'd think a compromise which added "early" to the formula should work, except it won't. If you had taxpayer funded abortions in the first trimester with over-the-counter of the "day-after" pill , then court-approved abortions for the next two with the basis being restricted (health and safety, rape, unusual circumstances), perhaps with a prescribed role for a voice for an advocate for the fetus, and taxpayer funding of pre-natal care for those who lose their case for abortion.

The details don't matter, because for people on both sides it's too basic an issue of rights to agree to a compromise.

My Dreams of a Self-Driving Car

 I've posted before about my hopes for a self-driving car, something which compensate for my declining physical abilities as I age. I didn't want to see the headline on this piece.

I repeat my previous suggestion of using an approach of developing a car which can memorize routes, given that many people like me do most of their driving over a limited selection of routes. Apparently from the article that's not the way companies are going--their loss.

On a personal note, I just completed my 3-year lease of a Prius with extensive safety features which saved me two or three times from likely accidents,

Do People Follow Instructions?

 Ever since I started with ASCS in its Directives Branch I've been interested in that question.  This election it is important because lots of voters will be voting by mail for the first time, and lots of county clerks will have to compose instructions and see their voters try and sometimes fail to follow them.

Anyone remember the "butterfly ballot" in Florida in 2000? I think the answer to the question is: "sometimes".  But it's often a problem to convey information from one mind to another, and often people doing something new try to figure it out themselves, only checking the manual when they screw up. 

The Power of the Past

This is a tweet from today. 

You honestly have to admire the confidence of Harvard business school grad students pic.twitter.com/HwfzTs0HpC

— Ronan (@rfitz77) September 25, 2020

 The Harvard business school students misjudged the power of the past.  IMHO the established retailers had power because they'd accumulated capital, both financial and real capital, plus the network capital of networks of suppliers and customers.  But while this present capital was enabling, it was also constricting.  In a situation where openness to the new and learning from experience was all-important, the pathways laid down in the past were no longer adequate; they were misleading.  It's called the "Innovator's Dilemma". 

The Right Question for President Trump

Lots of stuff going around on whether the losers will accept the results of the fall election.  I don't think the question to the president yesterday was well-phrased.  I think the right question for the president is whether he has designated his transition team. (He has, actually, designated Chris Liddell as you can see if you spend some time googling. But my real question is: does he know this, or has Meadows made the designation without telling Trump for fear he'll erupt. Based on everything which has come out about how the administration operates, I suspect that his staff keeps lots of stuff from him.)

[Updated: Politico just put out this piece on Liddell's work.]

The Hullabaloo Over SCOTUS

 Back in the 1960's the right was all "Impeach Earl Warren".  Part of the outrage as I remember it was over decisions on crime, part was one person, one vote, and a good part was forbidding the "Lord's Prayer" in schools. There were divisions on the Court, but they tended to be cross-cutting: Justice Black was strict constructionist on First Amendment rights, William Douglas was the epitome of the "living constitution", neither of which fit neatly into the divisions between Democrats and Republicans.

President Nixon started the process of replacing Warren (following a filibuster of Johnson's nominee for Chief of Abe Fortas) and converting SCOTUS to a Republican dominated branch of government.  Since then, in the 52 years, Republican presidents have named 14 justices, Democrats 4.  If things had worked fairly according to the amount of time each party had the presidency, the Dems would have had 7, and the Reps 11. 

Regardless, while there have been ups and downs and decisions I dislike, the country has survived.  We've made significant advances in social areas, and Roe v Wade has survived. 

I predict however the current episode works out, someone looking back 25 years from now will not see a major turning point in legal history with the filling of the current vacancy.  In the long run, the court follows the election returns and the direction of the country. 

The Banality of Evil--Soviet Style

 Just finished David Remnick's"Lenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Union."  

It concludes with the trial of the survivors of the plotters of the coup which tried to oust Gorbachev and which was thwarted by Yeltsin and the Moscow people. The trial, plus the access to the archives which the prosecutors had, showed the plotters to be rather banal.  

I suspect this is often the case in history.  If you were the fly on the wall getting a real time read on the deliberations and decision making you'd be amazed at how haphazard and ordinary the proceedings were. This conviction of mine is related to my belief in "Murphy's Law". 

SBA Small Business Subcontracting

 SBA's Inspector General did a report, including this:

The audit also found a glitch in reporting large businesses working for small businesses on procurements. The report said there are no requirements or mechanisms to measure small business awards that are subcontracted to large businesses.

It's an instance ofthe "golden rule" in government--those who have the gold, rule.  Over the years I've become convinced that, at least in the American system of government, the elite, the wealthy, can and do over time figure out how to evade and/or take advantage of well-intentioned rules and programs.  This is an example:

 SBA is required by law to designate "small businesses" owned by women, minorities, and those with disabilities, and agencies are required to give preference in contracting to these small businesses.  So when a project is big, the small business bids and then subcontracts the work out to the big business.  That happened on several IT projects I was involved with during my career.  That's a legal way to take advantage of the rules.  Alaskan tribal enterprises are one category of such owners.

I'm not sure there's a solution. Part of the problem is that "do-gooders" (like me) get aroused around an issue and get enough power to pass a law/put a program in place, but we assume the law will be self-executing, will be implemented as intended, and other parties won't have the brains and money and incentive to act to manipulate the situation. 

SCOTUS and the Albright Rule

In a NSC discussion over whether and how to intervene in the Balkans during the Clinton administration Madeliene Albright said something like: "what are your great armed forces if you never use them"?  I'll transmute that into a rule, named after her:

"if you have the power, use it".

That rule may be applying in the case of the Supreme Court.  Leader McConnell had the power to freeze Obama's nomination of Judge Garland to the Court.  President Trump has the power to nominate a young conservative woman to the Court.  The Republicans may, or may not, have the power to confirm her.  

After the election the Democrats may or may not have the power to expand the Supreme Court to allow a President Biden to nominate a young liberal black woman and others to the Court and the Senate to confirm them.

It's a game of tit for tat (I initially spelled "tick for tack") with no logical ending except greater polarization.  

Personally I would oppose the steps, but I think analytically down the road some sort of new compromise would evolve.  It's the same sort of dynamic which has created a bipartisan caucus in the House of Representative pushing a compromise pandemic bill. They may fail; the caucus may split; but at some point the center will reassert itself.   

RBG RIP

 My wife and I were fans of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, at least in the sense we saw the documentary and then the biipic made of her life.  She preceded me at Cornell by a few years, so I had that thread connecting me to her.

As liberal Democrats we feel badly; as humans we mourn her exemplary life.

What happens with the Court and the 2020 election now?  Lots of speculation, most of which will be wrong.