Is Nine Supreme Court Justices A Number Set In Stone?

Short Answer: No

Given the Republican senate leadership's unprecedented refusal to consider President Obama's Supreme Court nominee in early 2016, there is some chatter in Democratic circles these days regarding the possibility that a newly elected Democratic president, in 2021, might find her/his legislative agenda blocked by the current court (think anti-trust laws, for example).   What to do?  Well, theoretically, congress could add a tenth, even an eleventh seat.

Obviously we're a long ways from 2021, but the argument for adding seats to the Supreme Court has already been presented.  Essentially, the case is that:

  * A fair-minded seat was recently stolen
  * Seats have been added and subtracted before (though nine has been the number for 150 years)
  * Every presidential election for the past 25 years, except one, has seen more votes for the Democrat than for the Republican; and yet we have a conservative, Republican court

Doubts regarding the wisdom of such a case are many, but what is assumed is that adding seats would be an act of sheer partisanship.  The Democrats, or Republicans for that matter, would ram through the necessary legislation and tradition be damned.

But what if the adding of seats were done in a bi-partisan manner?

Assuming that an odd number of justices is desirable, there could be an agreement between parties that two seats be added immediately (one being the unfairly ignored Obama nominee), but that they be in place only so long as the newly elected Democratic president were in power (either 4 or 8 years), whereupon the number would be allowed to return to nine (through natural attrition: retirement or death).  This would thus neutralize the appointments made by our current president.

Why would this be fair?  Our current president's tenure is besmirched by scandal; and, his first appointment was the result of an unfair trick.

And what would the most likely outcome be?  Two new Democratic appointments (assuming a Democrat is elected in 2020), plus the replacement of the two most senior liberal justices, leaving a December 31, 2021 court evenly split between conservatives (Roberts (66), Thomas (73), Alito (71), Gorsuch (53), and Kennedy's replacement) and liberals (Kagan (61), Sotomayor (67), and the three new appointees), plus the centrist Garland (69).  Projecting another 16 years into the future (time enough for a return to nine justices), all the current members save Gorsuch (69) and Kagan (77) would be in their 80s and if not already retired, soon to be so: Thomas at 89, Alito at 87, Roberts at 82; and Sotomayor at 83, plus the centrist, Garland at 85.

This would be the fairest outcome, and one that would eventually uphold the Supreme Court's traditional number of justices: nine.  It would also emphasize the judicial balance that the American people expect from their court.

What Would Turn Trump Around?

Short Answer: Nothing.  But Why?

If I'd pursued graduate studies in my 20s it would've been in Developmental Psychology.  I'd been interested in the work of psychologists Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg, who both proposed objectively verifiable rungs on what might be called a ladder.  For Piaget, the rungs were those climbed by children as they matured educationally.  For Kohlberg, the rungs were moral stages that our minds may or may not reach as we mature.

What interested me was the intersection of these psychological stages that we pass through and their equivalent in politics.  I wondered whether this could possibly be the key that opens the door to studying politics as a science.

Here's a very quick, simplified example:

   * A child learns to see things from another person's perspective (this doesn't happen until concepts like abstraction are possible)

   * What if something similar happens in politics: perhaps when exposed to different cultures we're more likely to value individual rights over law-and-order

Anyway, Kohlberg's moral hierarchy certainly hints at this parallel possibility.  Below, I've quoted the relevant wikipedia page (with a few adjustments).  After that I hazard a guess at what is going on in Donald Trump's mind.
............................

Kohlberg's Rungs on the Moral Development Ladder

1. Obedience and punishment orientation
(How can I avoid punishment?)

2. Self-interest orientation
(What's in it for me?  Paying for a benefit)

3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
(Social norms; the good boy/girl attitude)

4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
(Law and order morality)

5. Social contract orientation
(Everybody's individuality is the starting point for agreements)

6. Universal ethical principles
(Principled conscience.  The self cannot avoid actions that it knows are just)
..................

Understanding the Trumpian mindset could possibly be as simple as a child's inability to progress from the second rung, self-interest, to the third, social norms.  Why?

Normally a child must conform, for the most part, or be ostracized.  Everybody needs to be loved, accepted and respected.  But, those who're very wealthy can become spoiled, and later in life can pay for love and respect, and so, conceivably, can fail to move on to Rung #3 and #4, let alone anything higher.  Could this become a self-indulgent rut for someone with narcissistic tendencies?  That sounds plausible.

The self-interested orientation sees anything that benefits the self as morally right.  Sounds like the ring-kissing that we've come to know.  Example:

 * If Putin's emissaries had taped their conversations with Trump at various junctures, it is quite possible that a tape exists of Trump spontaneously agreeing to have Russia hack election results in '16 and beyond.  You can read this fictional scenario in which a US election is hacked to realize it wouldn't be all that difficult a task.  If he is mainly on Rung #2, he would have seen an offer to hack an election as something that was helping him, which he would consider morally good--at least at first blush.

 * Needless to say, if he did react positively to such an offer, it'd be treason, and could return to haunt him in the form of blackmail, or if exposed by an investigation.

Incidentally, Kohlberg's theory might suggest that vast wealth is a terrible curse, stunting the inheritor's moral growth, especially in personalities pre-disposed to narcissism.

Postscript:
I haven't studied this material for decades, but rereading a few articles does raise these questions that might be fun to explore someday:

#1 Could behavior tend to hover on a certain rung, but with outlier incidents on other rungs?  That is, after a certain age our minds are able to conceive of higher rungs, and occasionally find our footing there, only to be brought back down by habit and need.  For example, it may be that Trump's inability to reach Rung #3 and beyond is because he allows himself to be self-centered, not because he can't imagine anything higher.

#2 In other words, could criminality be a failure to advance to Rung #3 and up, despite knowing that this maturity was the way forward?

#3 Could there be a Rung #7 that, like a Buddhist monk who turns inward, allows a retreat from the overwhelming responsibilities of consciousness, and instead enables meditation on, and planning for, future moral actions within the realm of the possible?

#4 Likewise, could there be a Rung #8 that sees consciousness re-enter the theater of social responsibility according to a cognizant timeline?

The Case For Prosperity

Did Al Gore's Defeat in 2000 Lead To Declining Wages?

Kevin Drum recently connected the dots.   Beginning in 2002, corporate profits have jumped at about the same rate that median earnings for American workers have sunk.

Why did this happen?  Drum focuses on corporations choosing profits over annual raises for employees, though no doubt he'd agree there's a constellation of contributing factors:

* the decline of unions

* the decline of the minimum wage, when adjusted for inflation

* the concerted propagandizing of the corporate agenda

* the enabling of monopolistic industry consolidation

* the default use of government's social safety net for under-paid labor

And what do these factors have in common?  The first four represent the "conservative" political agenda that is most often found in the Republican party.

As Drum makes clear (referencing a post by Dean Baker), since around the time of the 2000 election, which Al Gore arguably won, the average US worker has lost $4,000 in annual wages.

Though history can't be altered, the case for a progressive politics has only to look back at Gore's defeat, and point to a lesson learned.  In the form of a question, it's:

Does everyone want their $4,000 a year, or what?

Is Amazon's Bezos Getting It Right?

Do We Pan Amazon's Van Plan?

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has decided to augment the company's product delivery relationship with the Post Office, UPS, and Fed Ex by signing up independent contractors, each in charge of a fleet of several dozen Amazon vans, that will deliver Amazon packages the 'final mile'.

The claim is that Amazon won't be substituting for work currently done by the Post Office, etc., but that due to accelerating product volume that can't be accommodated, will instead merely supplement its current working relationships with 'last mile' delivery firms.

As a postal carrier, I'm a bit skeptical.  Here's how I see it:

  * A majority of Amazon's output, 62%, goes to the Post Office; 21% UPS, 8% Fed Ex, and 9% smaller carriers.

  * The Post Office is famously down-sizing.  Several years ago it closed smaller processing centers.  It could easily reverse course if it had a long-term contract with Amazon.

  * At the delivery level, the number of postal routes is constantly in flux.  Adding more volume to all routes simply means skimming off the excess and creating a new route or three in each office.  There are junior seniority personnel who would be delighted to work full time.

  * What about the additional clerks required to sort the added volume?  Again, postal jobs are desirable, and recent strides in automated parcel sorting have streamlined the process.

  * And the facilities in which the sorting takes place?  Our office is a 12-hour operation.  Expanding to 18- or 24-hours and adding auxiliary, package delivery carriers would only require additional carriers and vehicles (this is currently being done on Sundays, specifically for Amazon).  And, given a long-term contract, additional facilities could be built.

So, the claim that the post office can't accommodate Amazon's increased delivery volume seems a bit... convenient.  What's far more likely is that Amazon needs a backstop as it negotiates its contracts with the Post Office and other carriers.  That is, it needs the certainty of a baseline level of assured delivery so that it isn't forced to take whatever contracts are on offer.

Plus, there's the obvious matter of legacy costs (existing pensions, healthcare, etc., enjoyed by retired postal workers), which will likely make the Amazon vans strategy cheaper, or at least comparable to delivery by the post office.  Amazon will be paying local managers to hire and supervise delivery drivers for the company's vans, each of whom use the company's hand-held delivery devices.  No overhead, and no responsibilities otherwise.

The reasons why Amazon van plan isn't right:

  * It's slap-dash.  Amazon Flex is the company's current model for auxiliary delivery using gig economy workers.  Would-be delivery workers fill up their car trunks and back seat with packages at an Amazon warehouse, and using an Amazon smartphone, record deliveries as they drive a pre-determined route.  But, the work is not steady, it's demanding, and the levels of frustration are high.  So, the Amazon Van Plan can be seen as a refined version of what is currently being done in seat-of-the-pants fashion: using labor that will work for low pay, paying drivers by the delivery with no benefits; plus, providing shoddy support.  One can read the reviews.  And here is an overview, a description of a typical day working for Amazon Flex.

  * It's trading good jobs for no-benefit gig jobs.  Although Amazon says that their Van Plan won't impact existing delivery volume at the Post Office, etc., Amazon is the main actor in the decline of brick and mortar shopping.  This impacts salaried workers with benefits.  If, instead, it committed to working with existing carriers, good jobs would be traded for great jobs (postal workers can support their families in a middle class lifestyle, mainly because they enjoy union protection).

  * It's inefficient.  Postal carriers currently visit every household in the country, 6-days-a-week.  Adding another fleet of delivery vans to our streets is going to burn a lot more gas than adding additional routes and their delivery vehicles.  And we haven't gotten to how curbside mailboxes allow smaller packages to be delivered from a free-moving vehicle, as opposed to having to walk up to a front door, or up a flight of stairs, to deliver small parcels.

  * It's re-inventing the wheel.  Good postal carriers know their customers.  Does the customer want their too-big-for-the-mailbox packages by the front door?  By the garage door?  Would they prefer a notice for them to pick up a parcel at the post office (if they fear a package could be stolen).  These preferences will have to be learned...the hard way.

  * It's unrealistic.  A commenter named hope-for-the-best, posted this skeptical take on Amazon's van plan:

"So they expect me to operate a fleet of 20-40 trucks for a possible low end profit of 75K a year? 
With no guarantee of volume?
They can't possibly be serious... what idiot would be willing to do that?"

Read the overview and other comments, here.

..........................

Amazon has the chance to make a permanent, positive, branding impression as its delivery volume increases.  A handshake with the Post Office could include this quote  "We're committed to using best-practices and happily employed workers."

And, without comment, here is Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos on the future of work:

"I predict that, because of artificial intelligence and its ability to automate certain tasks that in the past were impossible to automate, not only will we have a much wealthier civilization, but the quality of work will go up very significantly and a higher fraction of people will have callings and careers relative to today."

Democratic Presidential Candidates: 2020

Running As A Team

I've sometimes wondered whether combining presidential candidates into an All Star team ahead of a looming election might not work.

For example, if Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton had agreed to campaign, together, as a team, and emphasized common ground, might the Democratic candidate have won easily?

The office of president has become almost overwhelming in its demands on a single politician, and having multiple candidates campaigning would seem more likely than an exhausted single candidate. Plus, emphasizing commonalities avoids the damaging rifts that can open up in a heated campaign and endanger votes in a general election.  Besides, most candidates in the party are on the same page, or their views are only marginally different.

Sure, the overall winner of the primary season would be The President; but what's more important, individual aspirations to fill that job, or the Democratic party agenda?

Perhaps each all-star team member would have a cabinet position reserved for them, in case they didn't win the presidency.

And, in order to qualify for that cabinet position, they'd have to have earned a certain number of primary campaign votes, or nominating convention delegates, or have signed on as a non-candidate.

Here, then, is what a first-rate All Star team might look like (note: I'm using lists of potential candidates that can be found on the internet):

Kamala Harris: Attorney General
Joe Biden (non-candidate): Trade
Elizabeth Warren (non-candidate): Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Bernie Sanders (non-candidate): Education
Kirsten Gillibrand: Defense
Cory Booker: Housing & Urban Development
Catherine Kennedy (non-candidate): Homeland Security
Michael Bloomberg: Treasury
Amy Klobuchar: Agriculture
John Hickenlooper (non-candidate): Small Business Administration
Hillary Clinton (non-candidate): State
Jerry Brown (non-candidate): Energy
Tammy Duckworth (non-candidate): Veterans Affairs
Jay Inslee: Interior
Michelle Obama (non-candidate): Health & Human Services
Mark Cuban: Commerce
Tulsi Gabbard: EPA
Andrew Cuomo: Labor
Oprah Winfrey (non-candidate): Moderator/Spokesperson
Julian Castro: UN Representative

The most unlikely all-star team member: Michelle Obama.  She isn't interested in running for office.  But if she didn't have to run, but was part of a team, she, Oprah, Tammy Duckworth, Jerry Brown, Hillary, Catherine Kennedy, Elizabeth Warren, and several others might feel that a united effort was worth the personal sacrifice.

A few positions don't make sense, at first.  Bernie for Education secretary?  But if this involved college for all?  And several positions could be thought of as steps downward for ambitious politicians: Cory Booker at HUD, Amy Klobuchar at Agriculture, and Andrew Cuomo at Labor.  But, these positions would involve a foot in the door.  If Booker, for example, won the nomination, someone else would fill his slot at HUD.  And on the other hand, if a politician said 'no' to being on the team, what kind of a team player image would that present?

Of course the person in charge, during the campaign, would be Oprah, moderating discussions (perhaps instead of debates) on issues that would attract some or all of the ten actual candidates on the list.  I'm assuming Bernie, who is a proud Independent, won't declare himself a Democrat in order to actually run; and that Biden, Warren, Clinton, Brown, Obama, and Winfrey are sincere in saying they aren't interested.  Also, notice that the list is Female/Male/Female/Male.  And, all candidates giving up their elected seat would almost certainly be replaced by a fellow Democrat in a subsequent election.