Lawrence on the rules that will make the first debate of 2024 ‘absurdly unrealistic’
In this episode of Rachel Maddow Presents: Déjà News, host Lawrence O'Donnell and guest Ben Ginsberg delve into the constitutional challenges surrounding a potential Trump-Rubio presidential ticket, given that both candidates are from Florida. They also examine the flaws of the presidential debate format, which places unrealistic demands on candidates to respond quickly without consultation.
Additionally, the episode explores the Supreme Court's recent rulings on overturning a bribery conviction and delaying a decision on Trump's claim of immunity from prosecution. Jim Clyburn weighs in on addressing concerns over Biden's age and verbal slips as he campaigns, offering advice on highlighting policy proposals and upholding democracy.
This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the Jun 27, 2024 episode of the Rachel Maddow Presents: Déjà News
Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.
1-Page Summary
The Constitutional Challenge of a Trump-Rubio Ticket
Lawrence O'Donnell and Ben Ginsberg discuss the constitutional complications of Donald Trump and Marco Rubio, both Floridians, running together on the same ticket. The 12th Amendment prohibits electors from voting for a presidential and vice-presidential candidate from their state. O'Donnell proposes Rubio could change his residency, while Ginsberg notes Cheney changed his residency early to sidestep the issue.
The Debate Format's Flaws
Critics argue the presidential debate format poorly replicates the presidency's real demands. Candidates must respond quickly without consulting advisors, unlike a president. Some suggest allowing candidates to bring staff for consultation during debates. The "Trump rule" attempts to control behavior by muting mics.
Supreme Court Rulings Raise Controversy
The Court delayed its ruling on Trump's claim of immunity from prosecution, which O'Donnell suggests shields him before the debate. Its 6-3 decision overturning a bribery conviction sparked accusations of pro-corruption leanings, with Justice Jackson arguing it undermines government integrity.
Addressing Concerns over Biden's Candidacy
Jim Clyburn says concerns about Biden's age and verbal slips, which stem from a childhood stutter, can be addressed by highlighting his policy proposals' benefits for families and his vision for upholding democracy. Clyburn advises Biden reach out proactively.
1-Page Summary
Additional Materials
Counterarguments
- The 12th Amendment does indeed prohibit electors from voting for both a president and vice-president from their own state, but it does not prevent candidates from the same state from running together; it only affects how electors from the candidates' home state can vote.
- While Rubio could change his residency, some might argue that such a move could be seen as politically expedient and inauthentic, potentially undermining voter trust.
- The comparison to Cheney's residency change might not be entirely analogous, as the political context and public sentiment can differ significantly between elections.
- Critics of the presidential debate format may overlook the value of assessing a candidate's ability to think on their feet and articulate their positions under pressure, which can be indicative of how they might perform in unexpected crisis situations.
- The suggestion to allow candidates to bring staff for consultation during debates could lead to an over-reliance on advisors and may not provide voters with a clear understanding of the candidates' own knowledge and decision-making abilities.
- The "Trump rule" of muting mics, while intended to control behavior, could be criticized for potentially stifiring important dialogue or for being selectively enforced.
- The Supreme Court's delay in ruling on Trump's claim of immunity from prosecution could be defended as the Court taking the necessary time to consider the complexities of the legal issues involved.
- The 6-3 decision overturning a bribery conviction, while controversial, could be supported by a legal interpretation that the Court is upholding a strict standard for what constitutes bribery under the law.
- Justice Jackson's argument that the decision undermines government integrity could be countered by the perspective that the ruling reinforces the need for clear and specific evidence in corruption cases.
- Addressing concerns about Biden's age and verbal slips by highlighting policy proposals may not fully alleviate worries about the potential impact of age on the ability to serve effectively as president.
- While Biden's childhood stutter explains some verbal slips, critics might argue that public speaking is a critical skill for a president and that any impediment could affect international diplomacy and public communication.
- Jim Clyburn's advice for Biden to reach out proactively could be seen as insufficient by those who believe that actions and demonstrated capability are more important than outreach and rhetoric in addressing concerns about a candidate's fitness for office.
Actionables
- You can deepen your understanding of the electoral process by role-playing as an elector in a mock election with friends, where you must navigate the constraints of the 12th Amendment.
- By simulating the electoral process, you'll gain a practical grasp of the challenges electors face, such as the prohibition on voting for a president and vice-president from the same state. This activity can be done with simple materials like ballots and candidate bios you create, and it can help you appreciate the intricacies of the U.S. electoral system.
- Enhance your critical thinking skills by organizing a debate club where participants must respond to questions without preparation.
- This mirrors the high-pressure environment of presidential debates and allows you to practice thinking on your feet. You could introduce a rule where participants can bring a 'staff member' to consult with on certain questions, experimenting with the suggestion from the podcast and observing how it affects the quality of the debate and the participants' performance.
- You can engage in community discussions about judicial decisions to better understand their impact on government integrity.
- Start a book club or discussion group focused on recent Supreme Court rulings, like the one mentioned in the podcast, and their broader implications. By analyzing and debating these decisions with others, you'll develop a more nuanced view of how the judiciary shapes government integrity and the rule of law. This doesn't require legal expertise, just a willingness to read up on cases and share your thoughts.
Get access to the context and additional materials
The 2024 presidential election and the potential Republican ticket of Donald Trump and Marco Rubio
Lawrence O'Donnell, with insights from Ben Ginsberg, delves into the constitutional challenges of a potential Trump-Rubio ticket for the 2024 presidential election due to the 12th Amendment's stipulations.
The constitutional complications of having two candidates from the same state on the Republican ticket
The hosts discuss the constitutional complexity that arises when presidential and vice-presidential candidates reside in the same state.
Electors from a state cannot vote for two candidates from the same state, posing a challenge if Trump and Rubio were the ticket
They explain that the 12th Amendment prohibits electors within a state from voting for both a president and vice president from their same state. This rule creates a challenge for Trump and Rubio, both Florida residents, if they decide to join forces. O'Donnell notes that Florida electors would not be able to vote for both candidates, which could significantly affect the election outcome.
Potential legal maneuvering, such as Rubio changing his residency, to try to overcome this issue
Ginsberg clarifies that electors cannot cast ballots for a president and vice president from the same state, which poses a specific issue for Florida in a hypothetical Trump-Rubio scenario. O'Donnell raises the idea that Rubio might need to move out of Florida to circumvent this problem. However, considering Rubio is a sitting U.S. senator, questions about the legality of such a strategy emerge. They speculate that Rubio could resign from the Senate and establish residency in another state to dodge the complication, though this tactic could face legal scrutiny since a senator must be a resident of the represented state at the time of their election.
Another argument suggests that Rubio could resign his senatorship on election day before the Electoral College votes to sidestep the residency issue, as electoral votes are cast after the election.
The Cheney-Bush approach of Cheney changing his residency early in the process as a cleaner solution
Reflecting ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
The 2024 presidential election and the potential Republican ticket of Donald Trump and Marco Rubio
Additional Materials
Counterarguments
- The 12th Amendment does indeed prevent electors from voting for both a president and vice president from their own state, but this is rarely a significant issue since candidates can and do change their official residencies to comply with this rule.
- While changing residency might seem like a simple legal maneuver, it could be perceived by voters as a lack of authenticity or a purely strategic move, which could potentially backfire politically.
- Resigning a senatorship to sidestep the residency issue could be seen as an extreme measure that might not sit well with constituents, as it could be interpreted as putting personal ambition over the duty to represent one's state.
- The Cheney-Bush residency change, while cleaner, may ...
Actionables
- You can deepen your understanding of the electoral process by role-playing different election scenarios with friends. Gather a group and assign roles such as electors, candidates, and state officials. Then, simulate an election process, including the potential for candidates to change residency, and discuss the outcomes. This activity will help you grasp the complexities of the electoral system and the impact of individual actions within it.
- Engage in local community discussions to appreciate the significance of cross-party endorsements. Start by attending town hall meetings or joining local political discussion groups online. Actively listen to the opinions of others, especially those from different political affiliations, and share your thoughts on the value of bipartisan support in elections. This will give you a firsthand experience of the political landscape and the power of endorsements.
- Create a mock campaign for a h ...
Get access to the context and additional materials
The flaws in the presidential debate format and process
Critics argue that the current presidential debate format is significantly flawed because it doesn't replicate the real-world conditions and complexities of the presidency.
The debate format does not accurately reflect the actual job of the presidency
It is noted that presidents are never required to provide quick, timed responses to serious questions during their tenure, a stark contrast to the debate stage. In reality, the president can take advice from a team of experts and confidants before making any critical decisions, unlike the debate setting where candidates are isolated and must rely solely on memory.
A more authentic demonstration of presidential capabilities, some argue, would allow candidates to bring staff on stage and consult them during the debate. This would better mimic the collaborative nature of the fulfillment of presidential duties.
The new "Trump rule" of muted microphones is an attempt to control his behavior
Given President Trump's tendency for inaccuracies and to monopolize the conversation, a new rule will b ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
The flaws in the presidential debate format and process
Additional Materials
Counterarguments
- The debate format is designed to test candidates' ability to think on their feet and articulate policies under pressure, which is a valuable skill for a president.
- Quick decision-making and clear communication are indeed part of a president's job, especially in crisis situations, and debates can provide a glimpse into how candidates might perform under such conditions.
- The isolation of candidates during debates can demonstrate their individual knowledge and convictions, rather than their reliance on advisors, which can be informative for voters.
- Bringing staff on stage could clutter the debate process and shift focus from the candidates' own abilities and beliefs to their team's input.
- The "Trump rule" may be seen as a way to ensure that all candidates have equal time to speak and that the debate remains focused on substantive issues rather tha ...
Actionables
- You can enhance your decision-making process by simulating complex scenarios where you must consult with others before reaching a conclusion. Start by identifying a challenging decision you face, then gather a group of friends or colleagues to act as your 'advisory board'. Present the issue to them and actively seek their input, weighing their advice as you would if you had a team of experts at your disposal. This mirrors the collaborative nature of real-world leadership and can lead to more nuanced and informed decisions.
- Develop your listening skills by engaging in debates or discussions with a self-imposed 'mute' rule. During a conversation, designate periods where you can only listen and not respond, allowing the other person to speak without interruption. This practice can improve your ability to absorb information, understand different perspectives, and formulate more thoughtful responses, akin to the restraint and attentiveness required in structured debates.
- Practice regulating your own behavior in discussi ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
The impact of recent Supreme Court rulings
The Supreme Court's recent decisions have stirred up controversy as they touch on the immunity of a former president and interpretations of bribery laws, prompting accusations of political bias and pro-corruption leanings.
The court's delayed decision on Trump's immunity appeal appears timed to shield him from potential fallout before the debate
The Supreme Court did not publicly issue its decision regarding Donald Trump’s appeal claiming total immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken during his presidency. It is suggested that the Court is protecting Trump's position ahead of the upcoming presidential debate by delaying its decision. Such timing could prevent any potentially uncomfortable debate moments stemming from the decision.
The court is accused of playing politics with the timing of this consequential decision
Critics accuse the Supreme Court of playing politics with the timing of this consequential decision on Trump’s claim of immunity, perceiving the Court’s delay as intentional to shield him before a critical public event.
The court's ruling overturning a bribery conviction highlights its pro-corruption leanings
The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision to overturn the bribery conviction of former Indiana mayor James Snyder. Snyder had been found guilty and sentenced for accepting $13,000 after awarding a $1 million city contract.
The court's narrow interpretation of bribery laws contradicts principles of government integrity
The conservative supermajority ruled that the federal law used to convict Snyder is only applicable when officials accept gifts in exchange for upcoming government actions, not as a reward for past actions. This decision has been criticized for potentially favoring corruption.
Justice Kanji Brown Jackson's dissent points out that the Court's narrow interpretation could undermine public trust in government integrity. Officials who leverage t ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
The impact of recent Supreme Court rulings
Additional Materials
Counterarguments
- The Supreme Court's timing on decisions is often influenced by a complex set of legal and procedural considerations that may not be immediately apparent to the public.
- Delays in Supreme Court decisions can be due to the need for thorough consideration of legal arguments, which is essential for ensuring justice is served.
- Accusations of political bias must be substantiated with clear evidence, as the Supreme Court justices are expected to operate independently of political influence.
- The overturning of a bribery conviction could be based on a strict interpretation of the law, reflecting a commitment to legal precision rather than an endorsement of corruption.
- The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the law as written, and if the law is vague or ambiguous, it is the responsibility of Congress to clarify the legislation.
- Justice Jackson's dissent, while valid, represents one interpretation of the law, and the majority opin ...
Actionables
- You can enhance your understanding of judicial decisions by reading the full text of Supreme Court rulings and their dissenting opinions. By doing this, you'll gain a deeper insight into the legal reasoning and arguments presented by the justices, which can help you form a more informed opinion on the controversies discussed. For example, if a decision on presidential immunity is released, find the official document online and read both the majority opinion and the dissent to see the different perspectives.
- Engage in community discussions to explore the impact of legal decisions on local governance. Start a conversation at your local community center or online forum about how Supreme Court decisions might affect your city's officials and policies. This could involve discussing the implications of rulings on bribery laws and how they might influence local political integrity. You might bring up hypothetical scenarios where an official could be swayed by private gains and debate how these situations should be handled.
- Practice critical analysis by writing an op-ed or blog post about the potential long-term effects of Supre ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Evaluating Joe Biden as a candidate
Jim Clyburn addresses concerns regarding Joe Biden's candidacy, particularly his age and mental sharpness, and provides strategies for how Biden's campaign can reassure voters.
Biden's age and mental acuity are concerns for some voters that his campaign needs to address
Clyburn explains that he often fields questions about Biden's age and sharpness. He clarifies that Biden's occasional verbal missteps are not cognitive lapses but can be attributed to a childhood stutter. This rush to speak sometimes results in what is perceived as a gaffe. Clyburn draws a parallel with his physical condition resulting from an automobile accident — a limp that does not signify a lack of ability, much like Biden's words don't reflect his mental acuity.
Biden has overcome a childhood stutter, which can contribute to perceptions of gaffes
Clyburn emphasizes that there is nothing wrong with Biden's brain and commends Biden's profound understanding of government. He suggests that Biden has a masterful grasp of governance, which he exhibits through well thought out policy proposals.
Biden's ability to reach out to ambivalent or wavering voters will be crucial in 2024
Clyburn advises Biden to focus on how his proposals will positively benefit individuals, families, and communities. He sees it as essentia ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Evaluating Joe Biden as a candidate
Additional Materials
Counterarguments
- While Biden's verbal missteps may be attributed to a childhood stutter, some voters might still view them as indicative of his ability to communicate effectively as a leader.
- The assertion that Biden's words don't reflect his mental acuity could be challenged by those who believe that clear and coherent communication is an essential aspect of mental sharpness for a president.
- The claim of Biden's masterful grasp of governance could be countered by pointing to specific policy decisions or outcomes that critics argue demonstrate lapses or errors in judgment.
- The importance of Biden reaching out to ambivalent or wavering voters might be met with skepticism from those who feel that his policies or campaign strategies have not effectively engaged these groups in the past.
- The effectiveness of focusing on how proposals will benefit individuals, families, and communities could be questioned if voters feel that previous promises have not been fulfilled or if the benefits are not perceived as tangible or significant.
- The strategy of making policy benefits transparent might be criticized if there is a perception that the campaign has not been transparent in other areas or if the policies themselves are complex and difficult to communicate clearly.
- Articulating plans for upholding democracy could be challenged by those who argue ...
Actionables
- You can enhance your communication skills by practicing speaking in front of a mirror to observe facial expressions and body language, ensuring your non-verbal cues match your intended message.
- This technique helps you become more aware of how you present yourself and can lead to improvements in how effectively you convey your thoughts and emotions. For example, if you notice you frown when discussing positive news, you can work on maintaining a neutral or positive facial expression to better align with your message.
- You can build trust with others by sharing clear, concise summaries of complex topics during casual conversations.
- By breaking down intricate subjects into digestible pieces, you demonstrate your understanding and make it easier for others to grasp the benefits of certain ideas. For instance, if discussing a new community policy, focus on how it directly impacts your neighbors to foster a deeper connection and understanding.
- You can practice forward-think ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Create Summaries for anything on the web
Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser
