Absolutely - Competitive races makes less extreme candidates, more willingness to compromise and a better functioning government, Everything the Republicans touch turns into an absolute **** show and makes everything worse.
The incentives to make money and be a good lawmaker do not align. They are probably orthogonal. If you are serving the people then you probably aren’t enriching yourself. You don’t have to be smart or a good legislator to sell your vote or create laws that you profit from. I would consider that unethical because you are sacrificing the greater good for personal gain. Outside of their job as a congressperson, I don’t care how much money they make.
In 4 months people won't really remember this (unless somehow Jeffries wins). But it is amazing that a group of people with very little difference in policy positions from McCarthy would do this. The thing is that if there had actually been a red wave McCarthy likely would have a wide enough margin to still win. Of course those holding up the process are also lying about it, making claims that if Congress isn't doing other work money isn't being spent. That money had already been allocated and will be spent unless congress does get back to work and stops it.
Why does McCarthy want to be Speaker of the House so badly anyways? Isn’t this like his 3rd attempt this dude is acting like the Speaker position is a childhood dream of his
Then we will have chaos in many states, with no more purple states. Every state can be like Texas vs. Cali (well, Cali is actually pretty good at not gerrymandering...Tex vs Washington state?).
Yes and that is where things like conflict of interest rules and transparency come in. I think though saying that Congress people shouldn't be able to be worth more than some figure like $100 million becasue it doesn't strike some people as reasonable is practical or would make things better.
In my opinion, its a risk he has to take. They won't be able to govern if they cave in to all of these demands. At some point, they have to play hardball and if Jeffries gets elected then they know who to blame. I'm sure they can coordinate with Trump, Fox News and other right wing outlets to come down on these clowns. This group serves no value to the Republican caucus and it'll send a message to anyone else that wants to challenge party leadership.
The bolded seems to be systemic parts of politics that can be changed to attract more ethical people in the U.S. to participate in politics and also win. If you're an ethical person but in order to participate in politics you must compromise your ethics in order to effectively navigate the political system in place, you can't really govern the way you'd prefer to live. And if that's the case, then what's the point beyond personal gain that can be had through unethical means? Which isn't to take away personal responsibility of politicians that govern unethically. It's more to say that the current political climate attracts people who are willing to act unethically and prop them up to the forefront over people who are ethical but perhaps find a greater quality of life and comfort pursuing other avenues that won't compromise their personal integrity in order to go far in whatever it is that they're pursuing.
Based on the transcripts of the case, I dont think the USSC is going to rule in favor of NC's version of ISL. NC was arguing for the most extreme version of ISL theory that no one other than Alito and Gorsuch wanted to touch. There was a lot of skepticism on a variety of grounds and NC's attorneys really struggled to answer questions from liberal and conservative justices about the broad scope of NC's proposal. Kavanaugh proposed a middle ground where state courts can still continue rule on election issues but the supreme court could overturn in some cases. I suspect at best this will be the result. The Supreme Court will grant itself some sort of authority to overrule state courts with a new test to outline the instances of when it might do so. This is in line with Rehnquist's original ISL argument in Bush v Gore (which was an example of the Supreme Court overriding a state Supreme Court on an elections issue). At the time, it was called a one time issue but Rehnquist's concurrence tried to argue that the Supreme Court has a permanent role in providing limited oversight in extreme cases (like the Florida recount).
I follow SCOTUS 9 months out of the year closer than any non ConLaw professor. They're not going to rule for any broad independent legislature power interpretation.
It would also be stupid for conservatives to rule that way. NC's version of ISL gives Democrats more upside than Republicans. You'd get the potential for extreme gerrymanders in places like New York, California, Washington, New Jersey, and Virginia. Republicans end up worse off than before the case if that happens because most Republican states are nearly maxed out on their gerrymanders.
