Loan Harry Reid your testicles

By Frank Moraes 

(Ed. note: Frank's second open letter to Sen. Boxer is here. -- MJWS)

At The Washington Post, two writers I admire, Greg Sargent and Jonathan Bernstein, are excited about the prospect of filibuster reform. First, Sargent broke the news that Harry Reid plans to go for the "nuclear option" in July if the Republicans filibuster three upcoming nominees: "Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; Thomas Perez as secretary of labor; and Gina McCarthy to head the Environmental Protection Agency." And then Bernstein argued that Reid was playing this just right by giving the Republicans a warning and an opportunity to reform themselves.

The problem, of course, is: really?! Are we really supposed to believe that (1) Republicans will respond to what they should rightly assume is an empty threat? And is it at all credible that (2) Reid will in fact do anything this time other than shake hands with Mitch McConnell? However, it is possible that I'm being unfair to the Majority Leader. According to Bernstein, Reid is constrained because (he doesn't put it this way) he is the leader of a bunch of wimps who wouldn't go to the bathroom without asking permission from the Republicans. And there is likely something to that. But if it is the case that Reid doesn't have the support of his caucus, then why is he saying anything at all?

Another problem is that we really don't know what Reid means by his test case of three nominations. The truth is that the Republicans filibuster every nominee. I know that some nominees do get through, but that is only because some Republicans vote for cloture. Let's be really clear here: Senate Republicans require 60 votes for every nominee. Requiring 60 senators before a vote can be cast is a filibuster. If they get the 60 senators, it was an unsuccessful filibuster; but it was still a filibuster.

So the question is, will Harry Reid launch the "nuclear option" if Republicans unsuccessfully filibuster these three nominees? Because they will filibuster them. And even worse, what if only one or two of the nominees are successfully filibustered? We don't know. But I have a hunch: Reid will declare victory and slink away. I would love to be proven wrong.

Read more »

Assault weapons ban?

By Frank Moraes 

Ed. note: Frank thinks I might disagree with him here, if only because he's shifting the argument away from assault weapons. I don't. While I do think assault weapons, which to me are weapons of mass destruction, ought to be banned, there ought to be broader gun control that includes restrictions on handguns as well as substantial waiting periods, among other things. Actually, I'm all for going much further than that, but I realize you have to be realistic if you want to get anything done. There's just no way the U.S. is about to enact the comprehensive gun legislation I'd prefer.

My only quibble with Frank's post is with his second footnote. To me, the Second Amendment does apply only to militias, not to private individuals, except insofar as it was assumed at the time that in the absence of a standing army militias would be made up of private individuals. ("If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country,..." wrote Hamilton in Federalist 29.) Just because the Supreme Court has interpreted it a certain way over time doesn't mean that interpretation is the right one, or that Madison et al. meant it that way.

As Justice Stevens wrote in his dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): 

The Amendment's text does justify a different limitation: the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves." 

The Framers knew what they were doing. And if they'd meant to enshrine an individual's right to bear arms in the Constitution, they would have said so.

The distortion of the Framers' intent in this regard is one of the most blatant ways conservatives have imposed their right-wing ideology on America.

-- MJWS

**********

Greg Sargent's The Plum Line blog is quickly becoming my favorite Washington Post reading, which is to say I turn to it more often than Ezra Klein's excellent Wonk Blog. Sargent just seems to write more about the stuff I'm interested in. Klein writes a lot more about economics, but I'm afraid I read a good deal too much economics elsewhere. Anyway. This morning Sargent was focused on gun control.

He noted a couple of articles about where the White House is regarding an assault weapons ban. The New York Times claims that they are planning to dump it and focus on background checks and high capacity magazines. But Sam Stein claims they are still pushing the ban on these guns.

I think the focus on assault weapons is misplaced. I understand that they look scary. On a recent trip to Mexico, seeing all the military with these kinds of guns was intimidating. But like syringes with drug addiction, they are just provocative and indicative, not the problem itself. To me, the thing that I most associate with assault rifles are the 30-round banana clips.

Read more »