TPM Reader TB dropped me a note this afternoon about today’s second post. He liked it. Then he wrote this: “You’ve pretty much conclusively won the argument on SCOTUS reform, starting with immediate unilateral expansion. You’ve written comparatively much less about the filibuster and I’m among those unconvinced that just nuking it is the best way forward or that that’s a win as a platform plank. Not passionately against it, just not clear on how concretely that plays out as a long-term win.”
I’ve written pretty extensively about abolishing the filibuster. But I haven’t done so in quite some time. So I welcome the opportunity to do so again.
I’d put the matter in three related arguments: 1) It’s bad on the merits and defies if not violates the constitution. 2) It hurts Democrats disproportionately. 3) The existence of the modern filibuster is a major driver of the loss of confidence in public institutions.
Yesterday The Bulwark’s Lauren Egan ran an “exclusive” with an advance look at Project 2029 and its policy recommendations going into the 2028 election. TPM Alum Brian Beutler looks at it and concludes, in so many words, this ain’t it. I read the piece last night and that was exactly my conclusion.
First, a few points of context. Attitudinally and analytically I blanche at most things Egan writes. That’s not a criticism precisely. There’s nothing wrong with not sharing my viewpoints or outlook. I think it’s fair for me to share that background. I would also say that there’s a lot of hunger for a Project 2029. I had someone pitch me a few days ago on leading one up. But there doesn’t need to be just one. At least for now, we should be in a let 100 Flowers Bloom mode. There can also be different kinds. With that said though, what Egan published didn’t seem like anything like what I and I imagine others are talking about. It seems like a mix of positioning statement and policy portfolio. And some of those policies are good ones. It talks about affordability; it talks about breaking up monopolies, etc. That may have some role. But that’s an entirely different exercise.
Josh Kovensky has a good piece up today on the collapse of the “Broadview Four” nee Six case in Chicago. What started off as yet another case of wild overcharging by the Trump Justice Department and politically motivated prosecution collapsed a week ago when a stunning level of prosecutorial misconduct was revealed in open court and all the remaining charges were dropped. The taint of the misconduct has already spread to other cases. The U.S. Attorney in Chicago, Andrew S. Boutros, has reacted with what he purports are important and until now neglected “reforms” to avoid anything happening like this again. (He has also been accused by one of the defense attorneys in the case of at least some level of involvement with the tainted grand jury.) But according to experts on grand juries, avoiding the levels of misconduct revealed in the case could have been done easily enough by just not breaking some of the most basic rules for how prosecutors must conduct themselves in grand juries.
It’s a galactic mess. But it’s also an example of the corruption of the Trump DOJ seeping down into depths of the Department.
In things I write here in the Editors’ Blog, I am both critical of mainstream news conventional wisdom and also interested in it as a political artifact in itself. Whether it is accurate, fair, quality journalism, it is a fact of the political geography on its own. So it’s important to understand, and I spend a lot of time trying to analyze and place it on that basis.
On that front I wanted to return to a point I’ve alluded to a few times recently, which is that just in the last week or so there’s been a shift in that elite news conventional wisdom toward what we and others have been saying for a couple months. And that is a new focus on the disconnect, really the chasm opening up between Donald Trump’s political fortunes and his political actions. It’s not simply that Trump isn’t adjusting or repositioning as a more conventional politician might. Trump’s never been that way. It’s out of character. But he’s accelerating into the most toxic parts of his presidency. In addition to general discontent about the economy and the very unpopular Iran War, he’s pushed things like his ballroom and his slush fund to the very top of the political agenda, even short-circuiting or delaying other parts of his agenda to further them.
The South Carolina state senate has just again killed the state’s redistricting bill. Given what’s already happened — definitely happening, definitely not happening, definitely re-happening with the help of the governor — I wouldn’t say anything should be treated as final. But it’s another major reverse. And it certainly seems like a sign these senators aren’t kidding, whatever Trump threatens.
As we discussed a few weeks ago, South Carolina is already VERY gerrymandered. Distribute Rep. Jim Clyburn’s voters to the rest of the delegation and you have a real chance in a wave year that you lose net seats. Not saying that would be guaranteed to happen. But I think it’s the real driver in the Senate.
I went to my college reunion this weekend. It was cold and rainy at a time of the year when it’s supposed to be warm and sunny or at least warm and rainy. So I didn’t stay as long as I’d planned. But in the short time I was there, I had a number of people come up to me and say that I’d brought them around on the idea of Court reform. This was about things I’ve written here in the Editors’ Blog but, interestingly and somewhat surprisingly to me, far more of the comments were about things I’ve said on the podcast. This was of course gratifying to hear personally. But I note it here because it was an example, out in the wild if you will, of the broader pattern: a sea change in ideas, goals and judgments of the Supreme Court and the necessity of reform. I saw it at this elite university reunion. I’m seeing more and more examples of it within the legal academy – at least the beginnings of it. And perhaps most importantly we’re seeing discussion about it from elected members of Congress.
The Broadview Six case didn’t collapse at once. Over the last few months, the case slowly crumbled, piece by piece, with federal prosecutors trying — and eventually failing — to salvage it.
Kate and Josh discuss Ken Paxton’s primary win, redistricting developments in South Carolina and Alabama and fissures between congressional Republicans and the White House.
TPM’s Josh Kovensky and Joe Ragazzo are joined by TPM reporter Layla A. Jones to analyze the state of the economy and why it seems to be working for some people, but against most people.
Kate and Josh discuss the expulsion of anyone of character from the Republican Party, Trump’s new taxpayer-funded slush fund and Jared Polis’ baffling commutation of election denier Tina Peters’ sentence.
