Let Freedom Ring
Posted: July 3, 2025 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Alligator Alcatraz, Donald Trump, Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE), Impoundment Control Act, Independence Day, One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Supreme Court, Supreme Court of the United States, Trump v CASA, Trump v United States, United States Constitution 2 Comments“It is not merely for to-day, but for all time to come that we should perpetuate for our children’s children this great and free government, which we have enjoyed all our lives.“
Abraham Lincoln in a speech to the One Hundred Sixty-Sixth Ohio Regiment –August 22, 1864
Tomorrow is the 249th birthday of the Declaration of Independence, a time to celebrate our nation and our heritage. On our way to our landmark 250th birthday, I cannot help but wonder what kind of nation we will be in a year.
As I write, the House is about to vote in favor of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) that incorporates provisions to rob the poor to pay the rich. Almost immediately, Trump and his Mar-A-Lago buddies will benefit. Their tax breaks and financial incentives will help to make billionaires and corporations richer. To pay for it, while still adding over three trillion dollars to the national debt over the next ten years, Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP — commonly referred to as food stamps) will be cut substantially, along with other programs. The Medicaid cuts alone impact 12 million Americans. Along with other changes to the Affordable Care Act, numerous projections all agree that about another four million Americans will lose their health insurance. Those 16 million Americans set to lose their health care are not the perpetrators of waste fraud and abuse as Trump constantly falsely claims. The OBBBA is devious. The bill has many critics — the aggregate of reliable polls show that only about 33 percent of Americans approve of the bill. Knowing that, MAGA Republicans wrote the bill so that the tax cuts for the rich take place in the near term, but cuts to social services don’t kick in until December 2026, after the mid-term elections. Digging deeper, it is apparent that more than those on Medicaid will be impacted. Medicaid funds are the main source of income in many rural hospitals and medical clinics, retirement homes and other institutions that take care of our poor and elderly. Without Medicaid, many will close. In those areas, whether or not you personally have insurance, where are you going to go to get healthcare even if you can afford it? Cutting back Medicaid by about a trillion dollars will also lead to the loss of jobs. Several studies calculate that 500,000 healthcare workers will lose their jobs over the next ten years as a result of these cuts.
The bill is about 900 pages long. I do not believe that as I write today, a single Senator or Representative knows everything that is in the bill. There so many other provisions installed to satisfy the many competing interests of MAGA Senators and Representatives that the impact — and surprises — from the bill will be felt well into the future. Some significant changes include, for example, increased financial rewards for fossil fuel companies while it penalizes clean energy companies to such an extent that experts are worried about the future viability of the programs. As a result, thousands of jobs will be lost in what is currently one of the fastest growing industries in the U.S.
With all of that, my biggest concern is the immediate impact on Immigration Control and Enforcement (ICE). Over the next four years, spending for Trump’s border security and mass deportation plans will increase to a total of 150 billion dollars. For example, the bill allocates 45 billion dollars for adult and family detention centers. That is up from the current 8 billion dollars. Look for more punitive detention centers such as the newly minted “Alligator Alcatraz” concentration camp. Just this week Trump and his factotums joked about how much “fun” living in the Everglades in cages without air conditioning would be. There are also equally significant increases in spending for more masked, unidentified men grabbing people off the streets and putting them into unmarked cars and sending them to jail without due process, a warrant or any other legal justification. Some who have lived here for decades, raising families, working hard and paying taxes even though they are not eligible for social security or many other tax payer funded services. By this time next year most of us will know or know of someone taken away for wanting to have a better life. This worries me a lot. I do not just worry about those that are currently being rounded up. I also worry about the rest of us — what if we look “foreign”? Will we have to carry our passports proving our citizenship just to go to the grocery store? Where does it stop as the Trump Administration digs deeper and deeper into our society to remove those who they decide do not belong here? We already have National Guard troops and combat Marines deployed in a peaceful Los Angeles. What other demonstrations of unleashed power are we going to see?
To my surprise, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is helping him to change our societal norms. Last week it was a ruling on nation-wide injunctions and birthright citizenship. In Trump v CASA, Inc, the justices put serious restraints on the ability of a district federal judge to issue a national injunction. A good argument can be made that the practice of “judge shopping” and looking for an amenable judge to stop anything that a particular group opposes should be eliminated. Practically speaking, however, really? This was the case that they chose? A violation of the Constitution? (Trump issued an Executive Order ending birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.) Not to mention that the Biden Administration tried several times to get the SCOTUS to take up the issue and they never did. (According to the Congressional Research Service, 28 nation-wide injunctions were issued during President Biden’s term.) There are arguments for and against these injunctions. The system was beginning to be abused. However, it seems to me that a case involving a president trying to eliminate a Constitutional right by fiat should not be limited to the plaintiffs that brought the case. The Court did delay their decision for thirty days so that the plaintiffs could pursue other avenues to address the issue. Without going into the legalese, legal experts disagree on how effective those work-arounds might be. One, is to file a class action lawsuit, however this SCOTUS has been continually refining and narrowing what cases are allowed under a class action. No one knows what will happen going forward. The result? Probably chaos. Trump always takes advantage of the loopholes in any ruling or law and then lies about it. Right now twenty two states, and some immigrant rights groups, have sued to stop Trump’s Executive Order. Does that mean at the end of July Trump can start taking away the citizenship of those in the other 28 states that are citizens by birth? How do you or I prove we are a citizens? Trump is also threatening to denaturalize citizens that oppose him. Whether we agree with his critics or not, we do not kick citizens out of the country because of their political views. This is part of a larger administration effort to punish people for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech. Trump is also threatening to send US citizens to “shithole” third countries because of their beliefs. He says he will only send hardened criminals (there are already laws to imprison criminals in the US) but he gets to define who is a criminal.
Congress is impotent and unwilling to challenge him in any way. I had hope that the judicial system would temper him and keep his wildest impulses in check, but now SCOTUS says only they can do so. Not district courts or appellate courts. So in one sense, those courts are now exhibition matches because only the SCOTUS has the authority to rule on Executive Branch actions. By the way, on this court are the same people that said Trump as president is immune for prosecution no matter what he does in an “official” capacity. (Trump v United States) He has already shown a willingness to pardon hardened criminals if they do his bidding. Scary.
While we were not paying attention because of all of the drama surrounding the OBBBA, this week the Trump Administration withheld 7 billion dollars in education funds the night before they were to be disbursed. Those funds were duly appropriated and authorized by Congress. Once again Trump is going against the law. As a result, tens of thousands of summer programs and adult education and other activities to help kids and adults are cancelled. In addition the teachers, counselors and others have lost their jobs. This is yet another test of the 1974 Impoundment Control Act that Trump and his Project 2025 henchmen unilaterally declare to be un-Constitutional. Their belief is that the Executive Branch has sole discretion on how to spend funds appropriated and authorized by Congress.
Also this week, while few were paying attention, Trump severely limited military aid to Ukraine even as Russia mounts a major offensive and continues the largest aerial attacks of the war. Why would any of our friends or allies trust us?
In every instance I see the increasing power of the Executive Branch as they ooze into areas that give them more and more power. Appease Trump (bribe him — I am looking at you Paramount Studios), you get what you want. Oppose him for any reason and you are vilified, investigated, shut down or otherwise pursued in retribution. (“I am your retribution.” — 2024 campaign slogan) As time goes by he feels untouchable and ever more powerful.
Looking back over our 249 year history, clearly our country has been in some tough spots before and survived. We will eventually get through Trump, but I fear that it could be at least a generation of hard work to get back to where we were just a year ago. I cannot predict how things will look a year from now. When I put together everything that is happening (and the above is only a part of what is happening right now), however, along with his continued claims that the 2020 election was stolen and therefore election “reform” is necessary, I do not think that those of us that care, about our freedoms, our rights and our fellow human beings, are going to like it.
No One Is Safe
Posted: April 15, 2025 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: CETCO, Corruption, Deportation, Donald Trump, Due Process, Fourteenth Amendment, Immigrants, Immigration, Supreme Court, Trade War, Trump, United States Constitution 2 Comments“Nur für Deutsche” (“Only for Germans”)
Signs posted during World War II in Nazi Germany and occupied territories
“America is for Americans and Americans only!”
Stephen Miller at a New York City rally for Trump on 27 October 2024. He is now the Deputy Chief of Staff for Trump in charge of immigration.
Yesterday I stumbled upon a live press availability in the Oval Office where Trump and the president of El Salvador Nayib Bukele (the self proclaimed “world’s coolest dictator” — you can’t make this stuff up) held forth about a variety of issues. Among them, Trump declared that the war in Ukraine was President Biden’s (“he should never have let it happen”) and President Zelenskyy’s fault (“you don’t start a war against someone twenty times your size and then hope that people give you some missiles”), spread Russian propaganda, lied about the Supreme Court, congratulated himself on his trade war with our allies and friends, and opined about sending U.S. citizens to the most dangerous prison in the western hemisphere in El Salvador. (More on that in a minute.) All of that is to name just a few of the embarrassing and yet terrifying remarks that he made. To me, it was an unmistakable declaration of his belief that he was already the autocrat he always yearned to be. It was literally a jaw dropping moment as I realized how much trouble we are in as a nation that used to be dedicated to the rule of law.
The Trump Administration brings an entirely new level of craziness and ignorance into our lives every day. As the president and his minions challenge our long standing traditions and norms in every area of our national lives — from the economy to foreign affairs — there is one thing in common to all of it. The correct questions to ask are does Trump or his family financially benefit from his actions? If not, which of his cronies do? As Anne Applebaum points out in her article “Kleptocracy, Inc” in The Atlantic magazine, Trump knows that he can get away with anything. After all, he is a convicted felon that tried to overthrow the government and suffered no meaningful consequences. Why worry about silly things like conflicts of interest or blatant financial dealings that enrich the president? Who is going to stop him? Manipulate trade laws to crash the stock market, bring it back, and then have his family and friends profit from possible insider trading? Why not? But, just to make sure, Trump suspended enforcement of a long list of checks and balances on our financial system that prevent illegal activity. His actions now allow for nearly unfettered corruption, graft, greed and bribery to flourish. Too harsh? Look up “World Liberty Financial” as an example of the many ways he is making money off of the presidency. It is the Trump family cryptocurrency business that he set up just after his re-election. Anyone can contribute to it at any time. A perfect front for taking bribes.
The country, including you and I, are, to use a technical term, screwed.
But even as I watch my 401(k) disappear, the grift and graft are not my biggest worries with the Trump administration. I am most worried about the loss of our rights under the Constitution. We are well on our way to having our worst nightmares realized.
As with the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland father married to a U.S. citizen picked up off the street and sent to the notorious Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CETCO) in El Salvador, none of us appear safe anymore. The Trump Administration claims that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) declared in a 9-0 unanimous decision that under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, the president has unfettered rights to do as he pleases with regards to national security and foreign affairs. In fact, the SCOTUS declared nothing of the kind. They ruled that the U.S. has the obligation to “facilitate” the return of Mr. Garcia from El Salvador as he had no criminal record anywhere, was protected from deportation to El Salvador by a court order, and three administration officials declared, under oath, that his banishment to CETCO was an “administrative error.” The government argues that he is a member of a dangerous gang without producing any evidence to support their claim. Besides, they argue, he is now in El Salvador, therefore U.S. courts have no jurisdiction and the U.S. government cannot just go and get him. Not surprisingly, President Bukele said that he would not release Mr. Garcia.
Please let me get this straight. Trump started a trade war, threatens to invade Greenland and Panama, turn Canada into the 51st state, says he can end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours, and yet he is too weak to convince a two bit dictator (who is getting paid by the U.S. to keep prisoners in CETCO), to release one man?
Why is this important? Two big reasons. The Trump administration is clearly ready to defy SCOTUS if they don’t like a particular ruling, and it is currently unclear whether or not SCOTUS will insist on the administration following the law. Second, if the administration can claim that once somebody is sent to El Salvador the U.S. has no further way to bring that person home, even if they were sent in error, then what is to prevent them from “accidentally” picking up a U.S. citizen, sending them to El Salvador and then claiming that, as Bukele did on social media when this all began, “Oopsie….. To late.”
Yesterday Trump asked Bukele to expand CETCO with five new buildings so that he could make even more people disappear into the depths of that hell hole including what he calls “home grown criminals” — American citizens. Is that legal? Not under our Constitution. Can “mistakes” happen? Who knows? What we do know is that nearly every action that Trump has taken since his inauguration runs counter to what we had come to assume was “normal” for our democratic republic. Instead, his administration has declared “emergencies” in every area of our lives to put into place whatever policy suits their fancy.
Everyone in the U.S. is entitled to due process under the Constitution, no matter their status. The Trump administration sees no need for such legalities when they are dealing with anyone they deem a threat — as they define it. Apparently, they are the only ones that can define the threat. Note that we already have laws that deal with illegal immigration, deal with criminals and provide the ability to lawfully deal with people that are a threat to our security. Trump refuses to use existing legal means, probably because they know that there is no legal basis to do what they are doing.
Mr. Garcia is the example that demonstrates where this administration is going. Last week they declared roughly 6100 immigrants as “dead” in the Social Security system. They range in age from 13 to 80 and are here under a variety of legal policies. The intent is to get them to self-deport. Here is what happens when the Social Security Administration puts one into the dead system. Not only do you lose social security benefits (which most immigrants pay into but if they are illegal, they get no benefits out) but banks, landlords, credit card companies and numerous other financial and social systems immediately drop you out of their systems. You cannot work. Need cash from your savings account for food? Sorry, you don’t need to eat, you are dead! How do you self deport? By going to an immigration judge and letting them know. Easy. Except if ICE is also there and picks you up before you see the judge, holds you incommunicado and sends you to CETCO.
Apparently the Trump administration is focusing on students studying in U.S. colleges either on a student visa or with a green card. Several hundred students have been deported or refused re-entry into the U.S. for various reasons — usually because they are alleged to have taken part in demonstrations (even if peaceful) protesting the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians. The administration’s announced plans to scour the social media postings of all 1.2 million foreign students in the U.S. and deport those alleged to have remarks deemed “antisemitic” or critical of U.S. policies. The government will decide who meets those criteria without defining them.
Let’s come back around to sending “home grown” criminals to CETCO. Last week Trump signed two Executive Orders targeting two of his former first term administration officials. One is Christopher Krebs who was the cyber security official that oversaw the 2020 election. He declared it the safest, most secure election in the history of the U.S. The other official is Miles Taylor who was the chief of staff in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) during Trump’s first term. Mr. Krebs is in trouble because Trump still claims that the 2020 election was rigged (really? still?!) and therefore Mr. Krebs is facilitating the falsification of the election results. Mr. Taylor wrote an anonymous op-ed for the New York Times, and later a book, detailing how crazy things were within the Trump administration’s first term. Trump wants the DHS and the Attorney General to investigate and prosecute the two men. (Talk about politicizing the DOJ!) Here’s the rub. Trump declared that what they did, especially Mr. Taylor, was “treasonous.” The maximum punishment for treason is death. Does that make Mr. Taylor a “monster criminal” and if so is he eligible for permanent incarceration in the gulag known as CETCO? Where does it stop? He has said that the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Mark Milley committed treason by not doing everything Trump wanted him to do in his first term. Does he go to CETCO?
We might only be surprised by our lack of imagination on just how far this administration is willing to go.
Trump continues to sign Executive Orders attempting to put powerful law firms, that have in some way or another irritated him, out of business. Sadly, so far many of them have caved to Trump and crawled to the Oval Office to kiss his ring. As a result, Trump has amassed the promise of roughly one billion dollars in pro bono legal services for his causes. Whatever those may be. He only cares about himself, so I guess these law firms will give Trump nearly unlimited legal advice and support for whatever strikes his fancy.
The deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller publicly stated that his goal was to deport one million people by the end of 2025. (The dirty little secret is that despite the hype and high profile cases, so far the Trump administration has deported slightly fewer people than the Biden administration did over the same time period. The Biden administration followed the law.) That means that they are planning to deport people that are here legally. Just declare that groups of people (Haitians, Venezuelans, Ukrainians, pick your group) no longer have special legal status to stay in the U.S. and you have a target rich environment to start deporting whomever you want. Asylum seekers, green card holders, student visa holders, just pick a group. Were I a naturalized citizen I would be paying close attention. One man with a legal green card was arrested Monday while attending a scheduled meeting on how to become a naturalized citizen.
My sense is that they literally want to deport every man, woman and child that is not a born in the U.S.A. citizen. Although even that may not be enough if Trump succeeds in over-turning the 14th Amendment, which he is already trying to do.
No one is safe. Congress remains supine in worship of Trump and have abdicated their responsibilities under the Constitution. We thought that the judicial branch would step into the breach but it is not clear to me that they will. The SCOTUS seems hesitant to directly challenge Trump and his administration. Perhaps they know that Trump will ignore any ruling with which he disagrees and therefore they do not want to give him that opportunity. I do not know. I am out of the prediction business, but I can read and listen and see what is happening and I am very concerned.
I take solace in the fact that we are not Hungary, or Turkey or Russia. We have a tradition of democracy and most of us will not give it up easily. My concern is that the muscle memory of most Americans assumes that politicians come and go but life pretty much continues as it always has. That just is not true today. Big changes are ahead. What they are I know not, but we all need to pay attention.
Are You an Alien Enemy?
Posted: March 24, 2025 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Alien Enemies Act, Civics, Constitution, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Immigration, Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE), Supreme Court, Tren de Aragua, Trump, United States Constitution Leave a commentWithin political circles, in the news and among the talking heads on the television, there are ongoing discussions as to whether the actions of the 47th president will lead to a Constitutional crisis. Are we there yet or not? I believe that we are already there.
In our daily lives it is easy to lose track of all the chaotic actions taken by the president and his DOGE-bros to disrupt and destroy the federal government under the lie that they are eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. Possibly, you have yet to personally feel anything different or to have experienced any changes to your daily life. Therefore, you may ask, why do I really care about any of it? You may even believe that you are apolitical or “tired” of all the discussions and drama and divisiveness so you just tune it out. Good luck. While you were not paying attention, you lost many of the rights we thought were guaranteed to us by our Constitution.
Too dramatic? Let’s take a closer look.
On 14 March 2025 Trump signed an Executive Order claiming to have the right under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (as amended in 1918) to declare that a group of undocumented immigrants from Venezuela are conducting “irregular warfare” against the United States and that they therefore fall under the provisions of the Act because they are perpetrating an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” into the U.S. Specifically, he claims that a Venezuelan based gang known as Tren de Aragua (or TdA) is acting in concert with the government of Venezuela to destabilize the U.S. by using drug trafficking as a “weapon” to attack U.S. citizens.
For context, the provisions of that 18th century law (USC 50 Sections 21-24) have been invoked three times. It was used during the War of 1812, World War I and, perhaps best well-known, for the shameful internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. The law is generally considered to be relevant only in the context of a “declared war” which was used literally in the era in which it was written. The Trump Administration is trying to declare that the other language in the Act applies, specifically that illegal immigrants constitute an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” — although those terms are also used literally to mean large scale armed attacks by foreign forces as in a war or a step towards war. Throughout our history, the Act was understood to be a war time power only, not a hedge to get around the use of regular immigration law. Under the Constitution, only Congress can declare war. However, to provide for emergency responses, a president can declare that an invasion or predatory incursion is underway.
In the public relations realm, the Trump Administration has a powerful story to tell. Let’s face it, no one defends TdA as a bunch of nice fellows. They are murderous drug dealers that have no mercy for anyone from outside of their gang. In a word, they are scum. This provides a means to attack those that criticize Trump’s actions as being outside the law and they continue to attack anyone, including federal judges, that would disallow their use of the Alien Enemies Act to arrest and deport them.
But that is not the issue. And they know it. No one in the U.S. thinks that TdA is a positive force in our lives. Anyone you ask would say that they should be arrested, tried, punished and deported. The courts and the critics of the Administration are not arguing about the nature of TdA. They are arguing that there are already effective laws that deal with criminals like this gang that can be used under the Constitution rather than ignoring the protections we all should have as basic rights. (Curiously, Trump declared last week that he never signed the Executive Order, which itself creates a whole new set of questions.)
What happened on the weekend of 15 March is that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers made 238 Venezuelans and 23 Salvadorans “disappear” into one of the world’s most cruel and dangerous prisons in El Salvador under the alleged provisions of the Alien Enemies Act. To date, our government refuses to release the names of those captured. However, the Hollywood style videos of the deportations and incarcerations have given friends and families of those abducted a chance to identify their loved ones that disappeared without a trace. Most have no criminal record. Some appeared for their regularly scheduled check-in appointments as they awaited an asylum hearing and were arrested and thrown into the Salvadoran jail. Note that the Venezuelans were not deported to their home country but to a jail in El Salvador. Oh, yeah. I forgot to add that the Trump Administration is paying the president of that country 6 million dollars to keep them.
The Constitution protects all people living in the U.S. regardless of their immigration status. Everyone has the right to due process under the law if accused of a crime. Everyone within the U.S. is eligible for a fair and impartial hearing by the government under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments before their life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is taken away from them. The Sixth Amendment provides for legal counsel for anyone accused of a crime. Given the nature of the arrests, it is worth noting that the Fourth Amendment protects all of us against unlawful entry and searches without a warrant or probable cause.
Here is where it gets interesting for you and me and why I think it is important for all of us to pay attention. The Trump Administration attorneys in the Department of Justice argue that under the Alien Enemies Act, the Fourth Amendment does not apply. In other words, if you are in the next group of people that Trump unilaterally declares are enemies of the state, the federal government can break down your door and come charging in without probable cause or a search warrant.
Additionally, in a sworn declaration during a court hearing on the use of the Act, ICE Acting Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations Robert Cerna argued that “the lack of specific information about each individual actually highlights the risk they pose” and “demonstrates that they are terrorists with regard to whom we lack a complete profile.” He added that “while it is true that many of the TdA members removed under the AEA [Alien Enemies Act] do not have criminal records in the United States, that is because they have only been in the United States for a short period of time. The lack of a criminal record does not indicate they pose a limited threat.”
Many of those arrested and accused of being members of the gang were targeted solely because they had tattoos. One of those individuals, a professional soccer player in Venezuela who had been tortured by the government regime and received permission to enter the U.S. awaiting an asylum hearing had a tattoo. Of his favorite soccer club. Real Madrid.
So, for those keeping score at home, the Trump Administration claims that they can enter your home for any reason without a court order and arrest you, even if you have no criminal record. Because, according to Mr. Cerna, you are even more dangerous because you don’t have a criminal record. And don’t have any strange looking tattoos in Spanish.
We are living in Bizzaro World.
The issue is now in the courts. As expected, Trump and his henchmen and women in the Administration are crying loud and strong that a single federal judge cannot thwart the will of the great and powerful king in the White House. Apparently, they slept through their civics class that discussed the three equal branches of the government under the Constitution. If they do not like what the district court judge did, then appeal it. Instead they are calling for his impeachment. (Which will go nowhere but will provide for a fund raising advertisement for the MAGA crowd.) Eventually, this issue should wend its way to the Supreme Court. In my mind, this is a no brainer in favor of the Constitution as we have understood it for nearly 250 years. However, nothing is “for sure” anymore. After all, the current Supreme Court is the same one that said the president is immune from prosecution for any act taken within his official duties. Maybe they say that the president can use the Alien Enemies Act in whatever way he wants.
Additionally, the Supreme Court is sometimes reluctant to rule on Constitutional issues when it comes to specific duties assigned to other branches of the government. In this case, Congress declares war under the Constitution and the president carries out the duties of Commander-in-Chief.
This will be a real test of our checks and balances of the three equal branches of government which is already under tremendous stress as the Trump administration continues the quest to turn Trump into the autocrat he so craves to be. He has already subdued the Congress that seems now to exist only to rubber stamp whatever Trump wants. MAGA Republicans bend the knee whenever required and the Democrats in Congress seem leaderless and impotent.
The attack on the judiciary is a direct frontal assault. Trump already silenced several major law firms that stood up to him in the past. They caved. Several news organizations caved to Trump’s extortion threats. So far the judicial branch is holding. I am not sure how long they can continue to hold out, especially as they come under increased threats to their well-being as well as threats to their families.
Please pay attention. We are in a Constitutional crisis. Trump and his supporters are about to decide to ignore or defy a judicial order, putting our cherished democratic republic in danger. It can happen here. It is happening here.
Make America Hate Again
Posted: September 17, 2024 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: 2024 Election, Constitution, Democracy, Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, MAGA, news, Politics, Project 2025, Russia, Supreme Court, Trump Leave a comment“We’re in the process of taking this country back. We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless, if the left allows it to be.”
— Kevin Roberts, Heritage Foundation, primary author of the Project 2025 plan
Thank you, Kevin, for exposing just how violent a second Trump Administration will be. A more direct threat to democracy can rarely be found than exists in the sentiments behind this exclamation. We are supposed to let autocrats have their way with our democracy, and if we resist, then they will use violence to get what they want.
I intended to write a piece outlining the dangers in Project 2025 (found here: https://www.project2025.org/policy/) as exemplified in their roughly 900 page playbook called Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise (found on the same website). It is intended as the foundation of policies to be implemented by the next Trump Administration and is wildly un-American. But check it out for yourself. Trump and his campaign loudly complain that he has no connection to the project and knows nothing about it. Which may be true, because I doubt that Trump has read any policy documents either as president or as a candidate. Regardless, at least 140 former Trump administration and campaign officials worked on the project including six former Cabinet Secretaries, four nominated Ambassadors and his former deputy chief of staff.
Instead of going blow by blow through the radical ideas espoused as future policies, the bigger picture is important as we see the stark differences between the campaigns of the two major party nominees. Project 2025 is really about people. There is a cliche in Washington that “personnel is policy.” To implement their plan, the forces behind the project intend to use a presidential Executive Order to change the status of over 10,000 government jobs from civil service positions to political appointees, firing all of those long time government employees. This is the way they plan to eliminate the “deep state” and put in place people that have pledged their support to Trump, not to the Constitution, whatever they may claim. This is the key step to creating an autocratic regime. If he is the president, Trump plans to pull in all independent and semi-independent departments, agencies, and commissions and place them under his direct control. The intent is to weaponize the government to go after those that he thinks are his enemies and to pursue policies that personally benefit him.
There will be no more guardrails to uphold our democratic tradition. If you think I am exaggerating, think about this. The Supreme Court this summer declared in Trump v United States that the president is immune from prosecution for any official act taken in office. They did not delineate the extent of “official acts” (a problem, but they left it to themselves to decide in the future what constitutes an official act). They did say that it was inherent in the Constitution that a president was immune from actions taken under the “core powers” delineated in that document. They also articulated two important additional cracks in the guardrails. Any official act is still immune to prosecution even if the president did not have any evidence of malfeasance or simply had bad intentions when, for instance, ordering the Attorney General to prosecute any of his political opponents. Additionally, they declared a president’s right to pardon anyone as “absolute.” Thus, the then thought ridiculous example of a president ordering SEAL Team Six to kill his political rivals and then pardoning them is no longer ridiculous, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion on the case. The president would be immune from prosecution because one core power is his ability to control the military as commander-in-chief. Remember that Trump wanted to use the Insurrection Act to put down demonstrators through military force and to help to keep himself in power in January 2021. Now he will be immune if he tries it again.
The Supreme Court, in my view, is no longer a trustworthy guardrail. Besides, does one really think that in the future Trump will abide by a Supreme Court ruling he does not like? Especially with a bureaucracy behind him that has only one goal in mind, keeping Trump in power? His favorite president is Andrew Jackson who ignored a Supreme Court decision in the 1831 case of Worcester v Georgia. The result was the “Trail of Tears” or the forcible relocation of Native Americans to western reservations. To me that sounds just a little too close to Trump’s promise to round up millions of immigrants, put them in camps, and then send them “back.” The courts in general are suspect when a Trump appointed federal judge threw out the case against him for stealing top secret war plans, nuclear information and other classified documents. Not because of the facts of the case but for some unprecedented legal finding about procedure that legal scholars had no idea was a thing. We are on flimsy ground.
Personally, I think that there are actually three campaigns underway. It is not Democrat vs. Republican vying for the presidency. It is a coalition in favor of democracy (quite the big tent when it stretches from Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA) to former Republican Vice President Dick Cheney) led by Vice President Kamala Harris against the MAGA autocrat wannabes led by Trump. The third campaign? It is the not-so hidden agenda of the Project 2025 folks that want to take our country back to a time when women stayed home in marriages (whether or not they were loved or even safe) to raise kids, minorities knew their place (and it wasn’t in positions of power or even voting), and rich white Christian males ruled over all. Sometimes benevolently, most times in their own interest. This group’s standard bearer is Senator J.D. Vance (OH) the Vice Presidential nominee.
Trump is merely a figure head for the movement. Trump is only interested in making money and keeping himself out of jail. He will do anything the movement wants as long as he keeps the trappings of the presidency (he really likes being called “Sir!”) and anything that helps him personally. He has no real policy agenda, merely a collection of slogans and insults. Vance is the hit man. He was the personal choice of those behind the Project 2025 movement. They were over the moon when he was selected as the Vice Presidential nominee precisely because he was firmly in their camp, would pick up the slack when Trump is writing love letters to Kim Jong Un, actually run the government (with the new tens of thousands of devotees in place) and, let’s face it, Trump is an older man in generally poor mental and physical health, and should he not finish out his term, J.D. is ready to go.
How millions of Americans support a man running for the presidency who is a 34 time convicted felon, been adjudicated as a sex abuser, twice impeached for abusing his office, led a multi-pronged conspiracy to overthrow a free and fair election to keep himself in power and tells lies with real consequences such as the suffering in Springfield Ohio where he lied about the legal immigrants in that city, is beyond me. I honestly cannot get my head around it. We know they are lies because this week on the Sunday talk shows good old J.D. said so. “If I have to create stories” to get attention from the media then, he promised, he is going to continue to do so. (From watching him on TV I’m not too sure how quick on his feet he may be. The first rule of fake news is to deny that it is fake news.)
Trump is totally and completely unqualified to even be mentioned in the same sentence as “president.” He could not enlist in the military and he could not get a security clearance given his background. Yet, here we are. The real story is the one many Americans are too sanguine to believe. They think that because we saved our democracy in 2021 that we will always have it rather than thinking about how those that tried to hijack our democracy have now had some practice and four years to get it straight. The danger is incremental and thus harder to identify. As a student and as an adult I always thought about how Germans in the early 1930’s allowed their democracy to be stolen. It did not happen over night. It was years of small changes and diminished freedoms until suddenly it was too late. And, no, I am not comparing anyone or anything to the Nazis. At least not yet. More like the fascists in Italy in the 1930s. We need to recognize the danger and especially take a close look at that second campaign using Trump as their cover. Those folks are not going away even if Trump loses the election. Besides, the whole lot of the MAGA/Project 2025 crowd are already telegraphing that they will not accept any outcome other than their own victory. It isn’t going to be pretty.
I worry when I hear things like this. A news reporter asked a group of voters in a focus group about Trump’s pronouncements that he will be a dictator on day one and that after this election we won’t have to vote anymore and all the other statements he has made that he will rule as an autocrat. The focus group’s consensus was that worries about losing our democracy are just hyperbole to “scare” people and are just Democrat’s campaign talking points. They concluded that as long as they could vote, we would have a democracy. Hmmmm. I suppose Russia really is a democracy along with the People’s Republic of China and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Not only do they vote but they even have the word “republic” in their country’s name!
What could go wrong?
Abandon The Truth And Lose Democracy
Posted: January 6, 2024 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: 14th Amendment, 2024 Election, 6 January Insurrection, Congress, Constitution, Donald Trump, Politics, Supreme Court, Trump, United States Constitution Leave a comment“Don’t it always seem to go, that you don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone.”
— Joni Mitchell in “Big Yellow Taxi”
Today marks the third anniversary of the insurrection designed to keep Donald J. Trump in office. Yesterday, President Joe Biden gave a speech in Valley Forge Pennsylvania reminding all of us that the attack that day was anti-American and against all of the values that we say we stand for in our country. He also reminded us that without due diligence, it will happen again. Sadly, he is correct.
The effective propaganda campaign waged by the Insurrectionist-in-Chief and his accomplices in the U.S. House of Representatives and the right-wing media is astonishingly effective. The Washington Post made headlines this week when it announced that in a Washington Post-University of Maryland poll, twenty-five percent of Americans believe that it is “definitely” or “probably” true that the FBI instigated the assault on the Capitol. Even more astounding and dangerous to me is that in that same poll, seventy-seven percent of Trump voters are “not sure” or “definitely” believe that the FBI organized and encouraged the attack.
As we start the new year, it seems that our collective optimism that a new year can bring new and improved elements to our lives, is, I am afraid, misplaced. Apparently, the MAGA attempts to destroy our country so that a “strong man” (hint, hint) can take charge and straighten out our nation’s course are going to continue and where possible, are doubled down. Let’s start with the House of Representatives. The MAGA Republicans (essentially all of those Republicans in the House) are holding hostage a bill to provide aid to Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and our southern border until all of their demands (which coincidentally exactly match Trump’s) are met. For good measure, they are threatening to fail to act to keep the government open when the current continuing resolution (CR) partially runs out on 19 January 2024. (The CR is in two parts for different government functions. The other runs out on 2 February,) While Republicans in the Senate negotiate with Senate Democrats and the president, the House leadership refuses to participate and Speaker Mike Johnson (MAGA-LA) supports the most extreme demands of his caucus.
All of which ignores the fact that the president and Democrats in the House and Senate all agree that we need to strengthen the border and have asked for roughly fourteen billion dollars to hire new Custom and Border Patrol (CBP) agents and asylum judges, provide aid to border areas dealing with the influx of migrants and to take other measures to strengthen the border. This is not enough for the Republican House who demand, among other things, restricting asylum requests and detaining those seeking asylum until their case is heard (currently that could be years), building Trump’s border wall (while over-riding any environmental or historical concerns and allowing for non-negotiable rights of imminent domain to confiscate private land for the wall), rolling back current protections for immigrant minors, and they want to preclude any reforms to the immigration system such as paths to citizenship or legalizing “Dreamers” (immigrants that were brought into the country as young children and now have lived, gone to school and worked in the United States and are, for all practical purposes, Americans.) There is more in their plan codified in House Resolution 2, but you get the idea.
In sum, the House under the leadership of a MAGA Speaker refuses to help Ukraine fight Russia, provide needed assistance to Israel and Gaza, support Taiwan against an ever increasingly aggressive China, and provide needed assistance to our own border. But of course, they do not really care about the border. It is only a cudgel to be used to campaign against Democrats in general and President Biden in particular. Or as Texas MAGA Representative Troy Nehls said this week about the president’s border proposals, “Let me tell you, I’m not willing to do too damn much right now to help a Democrat and to help Joe Biden’s approval rating.” A great American. The issue is not solving the border problems, it is winning an election.
Speaking of such, let us return to the insurrection that increasing numbers of Americans believe is either fake, or “no big deal.” The story is a familiar one but worth repeating. Trump won the Electoral College in 2016, but as you will recall, he lost the popular vote. Immediately he called “fraud” “rigged” and claimed that there were gross improprieties in the way the results were tabulated. He then put together a national commission to prove that there was voter fraud in the 2016 election. The results of the investigation? Crickets. There was no fraud. The commission quietly disbanded. In Trump world, very little is new or original so he used the same script in 2020. Only this time he lost both the popular vote and the Electoral College. As president he tried to marshal all the resources at his command to upend the results and remain in office. When those efforts failed to work, he instigated an insurrection and gave “aid” and “comfort to the enemies” of the United States.
Here is the through line. From the beginning Trump claimed that the “deep state” and “Democrats” did not want him to be president because he would fight for the “little guy.” He made that argument in 2016, again during his presidency, and in 2020. Those lined up against the little guy would do anything to keep him from becoming president again. He has been consistent over the last three years in claiming that the 2020 and 2016 elections were rigged. Any effort to debunk that claim is derided as being part of the conspiracy to keep him from office. Thus the insurrection was dialed up by the FBI, the courts are against him, he is unfairly being kept from what is rightfully his (and his cult followers) and on and on and on. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, a continuing spiral. Everything is rigged and you, the common person, are getting screwed because you are not getting what you deserve and I will give it to you. When someone is in the cult, it all makes sense. Swallowing wholesale the idea that the establishment does not want Trump in power results in everything else that happens to him make sense. It is not his fault, it is the deep state out to get him. For true believers (and there are millions, but there are also politicians that don’t buy any of that junk but see a path to their own power — more despicable than the believers) it all makes sense.
Very dangerous.
Which leads us to the Supreme Court agreeing to hear Trump’s appeal of the Colorado court’s decision to invoke the 14th Amendment, Section 3 finding that he was part of an insurrection against the United States and therefore ineligible to hold office.
For a minute, I have to pause. Which one of us would ever think that it was necessary to go to court to stop a major U.S. political party candidate from running for president after instigating an insurrection? The mere thought of it is absurd. In my mind it would be inconceivable that anyone that tried to overthrow the government would be a leading candidate for president. Or at least it would have been for most of my life. I used to think about some folks in our country and their actions and say “this is not who we are” as a nation. Now, given that millions of people, knowing all of the facts, still support a man that tried to overthrow our government, I am beginning to wonder. Maybe this is who we are as a nation.
My own view is that the Supreme Court will find a technicality to keep Trump on the ballot without actually addressing whether or not he fomented an insurrection and subsequently gave aid and comfort to the insurrectionists. If that happens, then we have lost our way as a nation. Even now, Trump calls the insurrectionists “patriots” and “political hostages.” He vows to pardon them and have government officials apologize to them. He promises revenge and retribution to get even with his perceived enemies.
Let’s quickly review the facts. More than 140 police officers were injured that day. To date 1,240 individuals have been charged with federal crimes relating to that day, 452 of them for assaulting law enforcement officers and roughly 900 have been convicted in a trial or pleaded guilty to their crimes. For 187 minutes Trump sat on his butt and refused efforts as Commander-in-Chief to take action to stop it, which in my professional career constitutes a gross negligence of duty. Obviously his oath to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution means nothing to him. This man has no socially redeeming value to our country. And yet, he has a chance of being elected our president and becoming a “dictator” on day one, as he publicly promised.
Some people are upset that the courts may decide that Trump is ineligible to run for president. Let the voters decide at the ballot box, they say. I say why? He has already proven that he will not accept the results of any election unless he wins in a landslide. He has tried since 2015 to actively undermine our democracy. He led a coup for goodness sake! What makes anyone think that he will follow any rules, regulations or “guardrails”? He will not. He does not deserve to run for president much less to serve. Is it undemocratic to disallow Barak Obama or George W. Bush from running? They would be popular candidates today and many people would vote for them. They cannot of course, because the Constitution says that they cannot. The same Constitution applies to Trump. I am tired of him getting special consideration that you or I would not get. Frankly, I am just tired. The man is ruining our country, wholly aided and abetted by weak people in the Republican MAGA party that are literally physically afraid of him or that have sold their souls for a smidgeon of power.
Too many people think that “it can’t happen here.” All of the evidence is right in front of our faces. It can happen here. It is happening here. There are forces at work to destroy our country in order to rebuild it in their image of a white, “Christian,” male dominated society where the “right people” dictate to the rest of us as to how to live our lives. Trump just happens to be their standard bearer. Stopping him will put a crimp in their plans but it will not stop their efforts when a new Trumpian figure is in place. The bulk of the Republican party no longer is the party of small government, state’s rights and limited spending. They still talk that game but their actions show that really they want a large monolithic government that dictates the life choices, health care, education, even what books to read for our fellow citizens. It is their way or the highway. Otherwise you and I are “vermin” “poisoning the blood” of America. Believe what they tell you.
For 246 years we have had a pretty good ride as a democratic republic that values the freedom of individuals. Ours is not a perfect union, but throughout our history we strived “to form a more perfect union.” We sure will miss it if we lose it.
“A Republic If You Can Keep It”
Posted: December 21, 2023 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: 14th Amendment, 2020 Election. Insurrection, 2024 Election, Constitution, Donald Trump, Insurrection, Politics, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, Trump Leave a commentIn a 4-3 vote on 19 December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court reached a momentous and far-reaching decision. Citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, they deemed that Donald J. Trump was ineligible to be president again because he engaged in an insurrection on 6 January 2021. This decision raises many perplexing questions that could impact the future of our democratic republic.
The 14th Amendment was enacted in 1868 to solidify the civil rights gained through the Civil War. Primarily, it protects the rights of all Americans by addressing the basic tenets of citizenship in the United States. Perhaps its most cited sections concern birth-right citizenship and equal protection under the law found in Section 1 of the five sections. Section 3 is included to prevent former Confederates from holding state or federal office and reads as follows:
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
The Colorado decision will undoubtedly be appealed by Trump’s lawyers to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), as I believe it should. While current “conservatives” push state’s rights, our system will not function if each state decides for itself what criteria are necessary to run for president. The question is how quickly the SCOTUS will hear the case. The Colorado court stayed its decision until 4 January 2024, unless the case is heard by the SCOTUS before then. The date reflects a 5 January deadline for printing the state’s primary ballot. There is precedent for a quick SCOTUS decision regarding presidential ballots as found in the 5-4 decision in 2000 that effectively handed George W. Bush the presidency in the case Bush v Gore.
Before moving forward with this piece, there are a few things to say up front. I am not an attorney and certainly not an expert on the Constitution. I do, however, have a brain and believe that this section of the amendment is pretty straight forward in its language. I must also add that this case in not the result of far left wing radicals or an attempt by Democrats to derail the Trump campaign. The plaintiffs in the case are five conservative Republicans and an independent voter. The original arguments for applying the 14th Amendment to Trump came from some of the most conservative judges in the country, including members of the Federalist Society. It remains relevant to remember that the ruling disqualifies Trump from the ballot. It does not impose any punishment or result in a conviction for a crime. As is often cited, he is not qualified under the 14th Amendment just as he would not be qualified if he failed to meet the other requirements for the presidency under the Constitution (at least 35 years old, a natural born citizen and lived in the country for at least 14 years).
It would be easy to get down in the weeds and parse every word of Section 3. I am sure some will do exactly that. It seems to me that there are a few salient points that address the issues in larger ways through these main arguments.
Is the president an “officer of the United States?” Common sense and logic say yes. Why would the Constitution disqualify an insurrectionist from every office requiring an oath to the Constitution, except for the highest office in the land and the one most susceptible to danger from insurrection? The counter argument is that the Constitution often references specific requirements, duties or official actions for office holders. The President and Vice President are not listed in Section 3 by name so therefore they cannot be disqualified for being insurrectionists. This just does not pass the logic test. It does not even pass the Trump logic test. In other court cases he is arguing that he is immune from prosecution as an officer of the government, but here, he claims not to be.
Another area of dispute involves the boundaries of what exactly constitutes an insurrection. Was the attack on Congress on 6 January an insurrection? And if it was, how is Trump as president responsible for the attack or giving “aid and comfort” to it? To me, the actions Trump took for days and weeks leading up to the attack clearly demonstrate his intent and clear actions to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. The counter argument is that Trump has never been found guilty of engaging “in an insurrection or rebellion,” indeed he has yet even to be indicted for insurrection. Therefore, the argument goes, he cannot be disqualified. The Colorado Supreme Court and the lower court before it, studied the available, exhaustive investigations into the attack and unequivocally declared it to be an insurrection. I am with them.
Some argue that the disqualification would be imposed without due process. Again, I am not an attorney but it seems that Trump had lawyers in the court room presenting the case for his continued eligibility. They presented arguments as to why the Constitution should not apply and provided evidence to support their case. They will have the same opportunity in front of the SCOTUS. What more do they want?
Other arguments against the disqualification include questions concerning whether or not the provisions in this amendment are “self-executing.” In other words, is it a provision that can stand on its own and that can be enforced without any other action or laws required? There are a number of self-executing provisions in the Constitution, especially in the designation of powers of the three branches of government. Partly, this is about what exactly is an insurrection or rebellion. Should it be defined in law with specific consequences clarifying the 14th Amendment?
These are the broad outlines of the legal arguments swirling around the Colorado decision. The real fall out, of course, is political. Many MAGA and Republican luminaries are arguing that Trump’s fitness and qualifications for office should be decided at the ballot box. It is, they shout, un-American to keep the people from voting for the candidate of their choice. When I stop laughing, it might be worth noting that Trump tried, and continues to try, to do exactly that. He still claims he won the 2020 election and worked hard (including an insurrection) to keep the will of the voters from coming to fruition. He already tried to overthrow the government! He tried to prevent the duly elected president from taking office! How can that be any more un-American or anti-democratic? One might argue that disqualifying him from the ballot is actually the most pro-American, pro-democracy act we could imagine. The court system works “without fear or favor!”
(Note: In a future piece I plan to address Trump’s attacks on the judiciary, of which this is one more. The main institution that saved our Republic after the 2020 election was the courts. Trump is now working as hard as he can to disrupt, destroy and de-legitimize our court system. If he succeeds, there will be no guard rails to save our democracy should he prevail in 2024.)
The vast majority of the original citizens impacted by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment were never indicted or tried for insurrection or rebellion. There were no Congressional laws defining how the amendment should be applied. Why must we always bend the system to fit Trump’s desires and demands?
I hope that the Justices decide the case purely on legal and Constitutional grounds while ignoring the crescendo of pro-Trumpers that will put tremendous pressure on them to “stay out of politics.” Screaming “separation of powers” and all of that. I do not see how the SCOTUS can ignore the political and social ramifications of any decision they make. It will be viewed as a political decision, whichever way they go. My guess is that they will decide the issue on a narrow technical aspect of the law and the Constitution. As some suggest, they may hang their hat on the final provision of the section and decide that since the Congress can override a “disability” with a two-thirds vote of each House, then this is really a matter for the Congress to decide and the courts should stay out of it.
In the end, we will be further down the road of dysfunction and division. 2024 will be wild. Be there.
Party Like It’s 1868!
Posted: July 6, 2022 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Supreme Court, United States Constitution 1 CommentOur way of life is under attack — a warning that I have been shouting for some time now. While the former guy continues to push the Big Lie (in order to continue to profit off of the Big Grift), his impact on our country is more insidious and much more long lasting than just his attempts at overthrowing our government to keep himself in power. His biggest impact is the radicalization of the Supreme Court. Perhaps more correctly, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) orchestrated a type of revolution when he pushed three Supreme Court nominees through the Senate while making up the rules as he went along — changing them to suit his purposes. He refused to consider President Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland because it was an election year, leaving the seat empty for almost a year. Then in 2017 he changed the filibuster rule to push Justice Neil Gorsuch through to confirmation. The nomination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh was equally rushed. Finally, Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed by the Senate eight days before the 2020 election, after early voting had started in many states. So much for consistency, honesty or integrity.
Those three Justices have now joined with Justices Clarence Thomas (I should mention that his wife advocated for decertifying the election of President Biden and reinstating the former guy), and Samuel Alito, two ultra conservative Justices that have been waiting for the opportunity to undo decades of rulings. Five Justices now have a veto proof majority to decide cases for decades to come. Chief Justice John Roberts, a true conservative and not a Trumpist, has become something of a moderate vote, although in most cases he is expected to vote with the majority.
The result is a runaway court eager to execute a political agenda. Their most spectacular decision so far, of course, is to take away the Constitutional right to an abortion decided in Roe v Wade, the first time in our history that the Supreme Court took away a right. This decision will have far reaching repercussions throughout the land, many of which are yet to be understood. Many Americans are morally opposed to abortion but also believe that the government should stay out of imposing its will on women and girls’ health care decisions. Technically, the ruling did not ban abortions. It merely said that there was no Constitutional protection and it was left to the states to decide for themselves. In some states, the laws can be interpreted as preventing In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), “morning after” pills and some forms of contraception. Some states have no exceptions including the health of the woman, rape or incest. Where the health of the women is included as an exception, the wording is often vague making physicians and other health care providers reluctant, or down right refusing, to provide care for fear of prosecution. Some states are seriously considering making it a crime for a woman to go to another state for a legal abortion. Will there be pregnancy police? It is illegal in some states to gamble or solicit a prostitute, will they prosecute travelers to Nevada where such things are legal? A whole barrel of potential invasions of privacy in many aspects of our individual lives are just waiting to be unleashed by overzealous legislatures around the country.
But, wait! There’s more!
As I explained in my 5 May 2020 piece (The Minority Rules) the majority opinion overturning Roe essentially says that the Fourteenth Amendment “due process” and “equal protection” clauses do not apply to anything that was not mentioned in the original Constitution or that was unknown to the Congress and states when the Amendment was ratified. Let that sink in. Here we come 1868! All kinds of things were unknown in those days and the rights of women and minorities were nearly non-existent.
Although Justice Alito and other Justices tried to say that previous rulings using the Fourteenth Amendment, such as same sex marriage, unfettered access to contraceptives, marital privacy, mixed-race marriages, and a slew of other rulings, are not in jeopardy, several of them have voiced opposition to those rulings in the past or said that such decisions should be left to the states (more on that in a minute). More to the point, Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion expressly addressed those issues (except for some reason, mixed race marriages) as being wrongly decided. In essence, he was sending notice to the states that the Supreme Court would gladly re-adjudicate those issues if they are brought forward.
In this session the Court also weakened gun laws, narrowed the gap between church and state and crippled the federal government’s ability to regulate carbon emissions to fight climate change, among other things. Two guiding principles seem to be at work with this majority.
One is the “nondelegation doctrine.” This court used that theory to block vaccine mandates during the pandemic and now to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating power plants. In essence, the theory holds that Congress cannot delegate policymaking authority to Executive Branch agencies. In other words, if the law does not specify the powers of a particular agency, then they are not allowed to put forth regulations or rules that govern a given activity. In the modern United States, science, technology, knowledge and innovation are advancing at ever increasing speeds. To keep up with modern advances, and unable to anticipate every development, Congress since the late 1930’s increasingly wrote laws governing federal agencies in broad terms, allowing them to operate in a particular regulatory area, precluding the need to constantly rewrite the laws. In one study, 99 percent of the laws passed since 1947 delegated some authority to a federal agency. If the nondelegation doctrine becomes the new norm for the Supreme Court, the federal government as we know it may be made impotent and unable to govern. Which, of course, is the goal of several far right conservative groups. Certainly, there will be many, many challenges to federal control.
The second aim of this Court seems to be to return as many things to the states as possible for them to legislate as they please. We see this with the abortion decision. Expect it to continue in many areas of what was once considered settled law. Where you live will dictate your rights. One might ask why have a federal government if the states will be able to do as they please? Good question. Apparently national defense and interstate commerce are the only areas of responsibility for the federal government.
Historically, “states rights” has been the cover for the Civil War, enslavement of human beings, Jim Crow laws, and preventing people from voting to name a few of the oppressive laws enacted over our history through the middle of the 20th Century. Let’s remember our history. After the Revolutionary War the colonies first banded together under the Articles of Confederation, giving great latitude to each. It did not work. With the Constitution and the creation of a federal government, we became a (mostly) united functioning country.
For me, all of the above not-with-standing, the scariest part is yet to come. The Supreme Court announced that next year they will hear Moore v Harper a case from North Carolina involving a gerrymandered voting districts map created by the state legislature that was overturned by the North Carolina state Supreme Court saying that it violated the state Constitution. The court ordered up a more fair map drawn by the court. This case involves yet another far right legal theory called “the independent state legislature theory.” Without getting too far into the legal weeds, the theory claims that the Election Clause of the Constitution says that state legislatures are the only groups with the right to decide on election rules unless Congress passes overriding legislation. In other words, an individual state could set up whatever rules it wants concerning federal and state elections and that state’s Supreme Court or governor have no say whatsoever as to how it will be done. The governor cannot veto such laws and the state Supreme Court cannot declare it as running counter to the state’s Constitution. The legislature can do whatever it wants regarding elections. Or so the theory states. Put that in the context of the 2020 election and the former guy’s attempts to overturn the election. Had states passed laws prior to the election giving themselves the sole power to choose the electors for the Electoral College they could have ignored the actual popular vote and sent a slate for whomever they want. I cannot predict what will happen when that case comes before the U.S. Supreme Court, and that’s the problem. Maybe they will make clear that state legislatures do not have that unfettered power, maybe they won’t. And that’s scary to me.
Prior to the Civil War, the correct grammatical statement was “the United States are…” After the Civil war it became “the United States is….” I fear we are moving backward in time.
A Clear and Present Danger
Posted: June 24, 2022 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: 2020 Election, 2020 Election. Insurrection, Congress, Coup, J6 Committee, Sedition, Supreme Court 2 CommentsFor anyone that cares about the fate of our country now, or in the future, this was one busy week in Washington D.C.! While the Supreme Court was busy making our country less safe and rescinding a Constitutional right for the first time in our history (while threatening to continue to eliminate more in the future), the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (commonly referred to as the J6 Committee) continued its hearings. Yesterday was the fifth in the series, and at least to this observer, the most compelling of them all. Which is saying something as each has been ever more riveting than the previous ones and they continue to boggle my mind with the audacity of the ex-president’s attempted coup.
While we were aware of seemingly isolated events in real time in late 2020 and early 2021, the J6 Committee is able to connect the disparate dots into a comprehensive explanation of the attempted coup following the 2020 election. What seemed to me at the time as a series of egotistical bloviating statements, coupled with wild and preposterous claims by unprofessional and clueless attorneys acting simultaneously with unscrupulous election officials and elected officials in key swing states can now be described as a preposterous, but highly coordinated, well-executed series of conspiratorial schemes to decertify the presidential election to keep the former guy in office. For the first time in our history (there seems to be a lot of that these days), a losing president refused to conduct a peaceful transfer of power to his successor and tried to retain power for himself. The ongoing hearings reveal just how close we came to losing our Republic.
Many an amateur historian wondered how the democracies in Italy and Germany could lead to dictatorships in the 1930s. We now know how it happens because we came oh so close to having it happen here. A charismatic leader creates a cult-like following and then finds people within the system that are willing to do anything to gain power for themselves in support of the would be autocrat. Based on yesterday’s sworn testimony, we now have a poster boy for those that would overthrow our way of life. His name is Jeffrey Bossert Clark, an Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ). While his is a Senate confirmed position, he is relatively low on the hierarchy to be known to the average member of the public. He is now known far and wide as the man who was willing to stage a coup within DOJ in order to help the now ex-president stay in power. (As a side note, he was the subject of a pre-dawn visit by federal agents on Wednesday executing a search warrant to confiscate electronic devices for investigation into their possible use in a criminal enterprise.)
Mr. Clark worked a behind the scenes deal with the defeated president to become the Acting Attorney General of the United States. As was abundantly clear during yesterday’s testimony, Mr. Clark had no experience, expertise, or ability to run the DOJ. What he did have was the willingness to send out a bogus, deceitful, and unscrupulous letter to officials in Georgia and other states insinuating that the DOJ was investigating election fraud. Which was a lie. (Seemingly, the best way to find a place in the ex-president’s inner circle is the ability to unabashedly and unashamedly tell bold faced lies.)
His involvement seems like the “smoking gun” demonstrating the ex-president’s intent, ability, and effort to undo the free and fair election that gave President Joe Biden the presidency by roughly 7 million votes.
The then president continued to push the actual Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen and Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue to send out the letter mentioned above. For days and in multiple conversations they explained that they had investigated every claim of fraud or improper election activity and there was nothing that impacted the outcome of the election. It was a free and fair election. As he testified yesterday, and in Mr. Donoghue’s contemporaneous hand written notes provided to the J6 Committee, Mr. Donoghue and Mr. Rosen explained that they could not “just change the outcome of an election. It doesn’t work that way.” The now ex-president responded “I don’t expect you to do that. Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen.“
(In yesterday’s proceeding, sworn testimony from at least two sources included the fact that Republican Representatives Mo Brooks (ALA), Matt Gaetz (FL), Louie Gohmert (TX), and Scott Perry (PA) asked for “blanket pardons” before the 2021 Inauguration. Additionally, it is believed that Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA) asked for one. There was also a request for blanket pardons for “every Congressman or Senator who voted to reject the Electoral College vote submissions of Arizona and Pennsylvania.” aka the Sedition Caucus. Anyone that continues to support him now, knowing what we know with who knows what other gasp inducing revelations to come, is a traitor to the ideals of our nation.)
The ex-president knew that there was no corruption, he just needed DOJ to officially corrupt itself by signing a false document to fool the American public into thinking something was amiss so that he could use his allies in the Congress to decertify Electoral College votes for Mr. Biden and throw the whole process into chaos.
It was a premeditated plan with a beginning a middle and an end to keep him in power. As the hearings continue, we now know that there were multiple avenues of corruption intended to decertify Mr. Biden’s victory and to keep the former guy in office. The insurrection on 6 January was not a random act but rather part of a larger plan to pressure Vice President Mike Pence into changing the Electoral College votes, or, should that fail, bring down the Congress and decapitate the number two and number three office holders behind the president. We shall see what else the committee brings forward, but my guess is that the intent was to create such chaos and uncertainty with the attack on the capitol as to allow the president to invoke the Insurrection Act and declare Martial Law to keep himself in power until he could rig things to keep Mr. Biden from assuming the office.
There are two things that worry me going forward.
First, unlike former president Richard Nixon, this ex-president is not going away. He continues to rile up his cult followers in the public and in elected office to pursue the Big Lie that he won the election in, as he likes to say, “a landslide.” Over one hundred successful candidates for office in this year’s Republican primaries are advocates of the Big Lie. In many ways, the events surrounding the 2020 election were a dress rehearsal for 2024. Only a few real patriots that understood and stood by their oaths to the Constitution saved the day. Next time there will be people in place that do not take their oath seriously and will be willing to do whatever it takes to put their person in office. Apparently, some people put their oath to support and defend the Constitution in the same category as checking the box for terms of service to get on a web site.
As former Republican United States Circuit Judge John Michael Luttig, a conservative’s conservative, warned in a previous J6 Committee session, that there “was a war on democracy instigated by the former president and his political party allies on January 6” when “knowing full well that he had lost the 2020 presidential election… he and they set about to overturn the election that he and they knew the former president had lost.” He then went on to say that the ex-president’s actions today create “a clear and present danger” to the future of our democracy. Words no judge states lightly.
Second, what do we do about it? The danger of indicting and sending a former president to trial, under a new president from a different political party opens an entire series of questions about what that means to the future of our country. Does it set a precedent for every succeeding administration to pursue the previous one as punishment or payback? Would we be, as Dana Milbank of the Washington Post put it, “one bunch short of becoming a banana republic?” It is scary stuff. Unprecedented in U.S. history. It could start a Civil War — taking our current cold civil war to a hot one. Unknown territory.
On the other hand, the ex-president’s actions and those of his cronies and accomplices are also unprecedented. If we believe that in these United States “no one is above the law” then why would we not prosecute him? Clearly, I am not an attorney, but to this layman’s eyes the ex-president and many of his accomplices broke the law. They tried to overthrow the government. They were willing to establish an autocracy with one-man rule. Why should that go unpunished? If ever there was a political crime in our history since THE Civil War, this it. And he is planning to do it again. He told us as much. Holy Moly! As I have mentioned in this space on many previous occasions, autocrats from Mussolini to Saddam to Trump tell us exactly what they are going to do. They do not always succeed, but they have no shame and their ego is such that they are convinced that they can get away with it. Why let a petulant bully get away with crimes just because he happens to be a former president?
Taking the emotion out of it, hard to do, at least for me, there are pros and cons whichever way DOJ decides to go. There is every possibility that however Attorney General Merrick Garland decides to pursue this, or not, it could go south and turn out very badly for our country. To me, we have too much to lose by not pursuing every legal measure available to hold the former guy accountable. It is far more dangerous to our country in the long run to turn a blind eye to the coup ring leader. After each of his impeachment trials he was emboldened to take ever more egregious actions. If he is not held accountable for an attempted coup, who knows what he is likely to try next.
I agree with Judge Luttig. He is a clear and present danger to the future of our Republic. If one believes that, then there is no question as to whether to pursue a legal remedy to hold him accountable. Do it.
The Minority Rules
Posted: May 5, 2022 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Roe v Wade, States Rights, Supreme Court, United States Constitution 3 CommentsThe fall out from the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion overturning Roe v Wade published by Politico this week is getting a lot of richly deserved attention. While it is a February draft that is sure to change in some form or another, the basic tenets of the opinion will most likely remain — perhaps better refined, but still tendering the same basic argument. To date, much speculation centers on how the document was leaked. In a world where everything seems “unprecedented” this truly was. While Supreme Court decisions have been leaked before they were announced in the past, this is the first time in memory that an entire opinion was leaked. However, the why, who and when concerning the leak, although important in an institutional way for the integrity of the Court, is secondary to what is in the opinion.
I am not an attorney and I am not a Constitutional scholar, but it doesn’t take much more than an ability to read and to understand what is written to know that this opinion is a direct threat to way more than just the one case. Whatever one’s opinion on abortion may be, I recommend that you put aside those thoughts for a moment and think about what Justice Alito’s draft opinion means in a larger context.
For the the last year or two, my view is that the Supreme Court has, in a series of decisions large and small, been moving toward a very, very tight interpretation of our nation’s laws and Constitution. As this trend continues, it will move our country back at least one hundred years, and possibly back to life as it was under Reconstruction in the late 1800s.
For example, since the New Deal, and in keeping with rapidly developing complex technical developments, Congress increasingly gives authority to Executive Branch departments to regulate all manner of government and private enterprises. Recent district and appeals courts decisions have increasingly decreed that if a certain regulatory authority is not specifically written into the law, then that agency has no power to enforce it. For about one hundred years, we have assumed otherwise as long as it was reasonable and in keeping with the basic function of that agency. Chaos is likely to ensue should this trend continue as it would necessitate re-writing countless laws to specify powers that by the time the law is enacted are no longer relevant as technology and society move on.
The second trend that appears to be growing in numbers and reinforced by the Supreme Court is giving priority to the states over the federal government. Reconstruction, here we come. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were focused attempts to abolish slavery and to provide the same rights to formerly enslaved individuals as to those that enslaved them. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 (a date which we will come back to shortly) in particular is relevant to this discussion. Section One of the amendment includes the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Basically, the Due Process Clause extends the rights under the Bill of Rights to the states. The Equal Protection Clause says that every state must extend the protections of the law to every group equally. These clauses have been the basis for decisions such as Loving v Virginia which overturned laws prohibiting mixed race marriages allowing those marriages to be recognized in every state; Obergefell v Hodges which makes same sex marriages valid in every state of the Union, and of course, Roe v Wade, a right to abortion and the case now in question. Also relevant to this discussion is Griswold v Connecticut which hinged on marital privacy and the right to use contraceptives. The fact that the word “privacy” does not appear in the Constitution was a subject of debate in that case and is relevant in the Roe v Wade case as well.
From the last paragraph note that “abortion” “marriage” “privacy” “contraceptives” and many more modern activities and life style choices that we assume to be common in the course of everyday life are nowhere to be found in the Constitution. This is why Section One of the 14th Amendment is the source of arguments for and against many cases that reached the Supreme Court in the last 60 years or so.
This draft opinion is so upsetting to many Americans, beyond the impact of turning abortion laws over to the states, because it threatens other aspects of life that were considered settled. What other rights might states take away? It is not hyperbole. It is not hysteria. Several Republican members of the Senate raised similar questions as to why rights could not be “undone” during the hearings to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. If the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses were the basis for these decisions, and Justice Alito argues that they should not apply, then what is to stop states from taking away the rights of numerous groups based on marital status, race, gender identity or any other factor?
Do not be sanguine if you support a women’s right to choose that half of the states in our country still allow abortions. The Congress could pass a law institutionalizing the right to an abortion. Many Democrats have declared that they will work to pass just such a law before the mid-term elections. It will not happen. There are not enough votes in the Senate to break a filibuster and the Democrats will not or cannot overcome that rule. I guarantee, however, that if in 2024 the Republicans control the Congress and the White House that they will pass a law that does away with abortion in all fifty states — and they will ignore the filibuster if needed.
Several things jump out to me, a lay man, in the Justice Alito draft opinion. Most glaring perhaps, is that he says that a right decided nearly fifty years ago should be taken away. This is the first time that this has happened in our history. Justice Alito argues that the Supreme Court has changed their opinions several times throughout history. In particular, he mentions the 1896 Plessy v Ferguson case that established in law the “separate but equal” doctrine that institutionalized racism in our country. That ruling was overturned in the 1954 Brown v Board of Education of Topeka. Please note that the Brown ruling gave equal rights to a group of Americans. It did not take away a right.
If you happen to read the draft opinion (the link is in the first sentence above) you will notice a disturbing tone in his writings. I will not dwell on that, but he essentially calls his predecessors on the court morons and says that their decision, upheld in other cases since the original 1973 ruling, is “egregiously wrong.”
Digging deeper into his draft opinion, he seems to claim that the 14th Amendment only applies to things known in the year that it was ratified — 1868. Anything after that such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and countless other elements of modern life should not be included because they were unknown or unaddressed in that time. He says that “a fundamental right must be ‘objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.'” One could argue that racism, misogyny and bigotry are “deeply rooted” in our history, although the Justice may disagree. He goes on to argue that what people want (he uses liberty as an example) is not the same as what the 14th Amendment protects. Therefore, he continues, the Court should be “reluctant” to “recognize rights that are not in the Constitution.” And there we are. Apparently, we should live and act like it is the 1700s or 1800s.
Keep in mind that the majority of Americans favor no changes to Roe v Wade. Polls vary, but all show a majority favors keeping the government out of what may be the most personal of decisions. Remember also that many of the recent state laws make no exceptions for rape, incest or the health of the mother. When that is factored into polling, 80% or more of Americans are opposed to such restrictions. It seems like a single opinion is overwhelming what the majority of Americans want. Justice Alito addresses that fact by saying, in essence, “too bad.” He is not swayed by public opinion.
When this interpretation is tied to increasingly favoring states rights over the federal government, we are living in very regressive times. One would think that such an issue was solved with the Civil War, but apparently, I was wrong. We can already see in states like Texas and Florida what an over zealous legislature subservient to an autocratic governor can do to undermine the rights of those citizens.
In my mind, it gets worse.
The fallout from the Supreme Court rulings comes in the context of an ex-president that is still raising money and holding the party formerly known as the Republican Party hostage. There are very few traditional Republicans left that have not fallen into the MAGA Party. In way too many local, state and Congressional primaries, to win an election one must agree with the Big Lie and vow to overturn any election that a Republican does not win. That is where many, many states are headed. If your guy or gal does not win, then it could only be because the election was rigged, and the results should be overturned. I guess in many states, only Republican candidates are allowed to win elections.
In addition, looking at the Supreme Court which many would hope would be a bastion of defense against such un-American activities, we see a tendency to follow political beliefs rather than the rule of law.
Apparently here too, only Republicans can name Supreme Court Justices. Remember that the Majority Leader Mitch McConnell packed the Court with his nominees (I say his because the then president did not care about the Court, only that he got credit from his base). He blocked the nomination of Merrick Garland for nearly a year because of an upcoming election. Then, after voting for a presidential race had begun, he crammed Amy Coney Barrett through the Senate. Even as the president that nominally nominated them lost the popular vote twice. (Fun fact: A Republican presidential nominee has only won the popular vote once in the last 30 years.) To pour salt on the wounds, when asked recently whether any future Supreme Court nominees would go forward under President Biden’s last two years in office should the Republicans regain the Senate in 2022, Leader McConnell demurred, implying that it was unlikely. So, it is amazing that Judge Jackson’s nomination process went forward because it seems that only Republicans are supposed to be able to nominate Justices.
It is enough to make me wonder if our Republic can survive much past 2024.
Few people truly believed that Roe v Wade would actually be overturned. Primarily because in our history, rights had only be restored, never rescinded. Even Republican Senators such as Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski did not think that it would be overturned as they were personally assured — assured — in public and in private by nominees Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett that it was “settled law” or “stare decisis” meaning that the precedent had been set and there was no reason to change it. So, both Senators came as close to calling those Justices “liars” as is possible to do in polite company.
As has been noted, this is a draft opinion for the majority of the Justices. It could change. Some speculate that it was leaked in order to force a change — others argue it was leaked to solidify the vote of a wavering Justice currently in the majority who might change his/her vote. Time will tell. The final decision should be handed down in late June or early July.
My advice to all Americans that do not agree with this course of events is to do something about it. Demonstrating in the streets is great, it makes people aware and allows for a release of emotion. Unfortunately the only thing that will change things is to vote. Organize, get out the vote, and cast a ballot. Otherwise, the crazies will take over.
The Coming War Over the Supreme Court
Posted: September 21, 2020 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: 2020 Elections, Congress, Constitution, Donald Trump, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Mitch McConnell, Supreme Court 3 CommentsLast Friday we learned of the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Please take a moment to think of her and her family. She was a great American and a great American success story, coming from humble roots in middle class Brooklyn New York to rise to the Supreme Court. Along the way she was a true trail blazer and a forceful voice for human rights. She will be missed.
Her death opens a seat on the Supreme Court and offers Mr. Donald J. Trump the chance to put a third Justice on the Court. Elections do have consequences. The question then becomes, when do the consequences of an election kick in? In 2016 following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Senate Republicans kept an open seat on the Court for roughly a year claiming that no new Justices should be nominated or voted on until after the election of a new president. President Barack Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland did not even get a hearing, much less an up or down vote.
The real player in the drama then and now is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Tr – KY). As much as Mr. Trump has pushed and pulled and ignored the norms surrounding the office of the president, Mr. McConnell has done the most to undermine the legitimacy of the Senate and the norms that used to guide our selection of judges to federal courts and to the Supreme Court. Along with unilaterally changing the required number of votes to approve a Supreme Court Justice from 60 — which normally meant that whichever party was in power would have to have some votes from the other party in order to confirm a nominee, thus allowing for more moderate judges to make it on to the court — it now only requires 51 votes which gives each party a chance to approve radical judges aligned with their party’s interests.
Indeed, Mr. McConnell has been so focused on getting judges on to the federal courts that very, very little else has been addressed over the last two years in the Senate. Mr. McConnell put his pursuit of judges over the lives of the now 200,000 Americans dead from Covid-19. He will not address any of the pandemic relief bills so desperately needed to fight the virus and to restore our economic well being. So much for claiming to be pro-life.
Much has been and will be written about the sheer utter hypocrisy of Republicans surrounding the nomination and confirmation of a new Justice during an election year. In 2016 it was a full ten months before the election. This year it is only about six weeks before the election. In fact, some states already have early voting underway. You will see lots and lots of video clips of one Republican Senator after another twisting themselves into more knots than a pretzel trying to explain why it was different then than it is now. Sad. Additionally, please remember that there is no such thing as the “Biden Rule” or “Thurmond Rule” or even a “McConnell Rule.” That is a lot of smoke to hide what is actually going on. There is only the law.
The bottom line? There is no shame in Trumpland. They will do whatever they want and without regard to the lies, hypocrisy and sheer awfulness of it. It won’t change so I won’t waste time arguing it or bemoaning it. To quote the president’s remarks about the deaths of so many of our fellow citizens, “It is what it is.”
There is no shame. It is just pure power politics. In effect, they will steal a Supreme Court seat for the second time.
What action can those that still have a sense of duty do to stop it? Procedurally, not much. The Constitution is vague about this issue. Article III, Section I of the Constitution says merely that:
“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
Significantly, there is no indication of how many Justices there shall be or exactly what their role should be. Starting with the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress shapes the size and authority of the Court. Of the three branches of our government, the Supreme Court is probably the one that most resembles its origins and relies heavily on custom and tradition in the process of taking care of business. Chief Justice John Marshall, appointed to the court by President John Adams, is credited with shaping the court into the form and substance we know today. The number of Justices on the court varied over time until 1869 when the number became nine and remains so today.
All of this is background as to what means are available to Democrats, and perhaps a few Republicans, to delay the confirmation until after the election and leave the choice to the winners in the White House and the Senate.
Since it now takes only 51 votes to over-ride any legislative maneuvering and to confirm a nominee, the opposition to a hasty process can only come from political pressure. It is an election year and several Republican Senators are up for re-election and find themselves in very tight races. This issue could have a significant impact on who is elected or re-elected. If their constituents forcefully voice their opposition to proceeding without regard to the election, some sitting Senators may find it difficult to support Mr. McConnell’s plan.
So far two Republican Senators have indicated that they do not support moving ahead with the process until after the election. Is it possible more might join them? Possible, but not a sure thing. Tremendous pressure will be applied to every Republican Senator to stay in line. In that regard, when the vote is taken will be critical.
By all accounts, the only thing that Senator McConnell values more than changing the face of the judiciary is retaining his power and prestige as majority leader. He will use everything in his power to keep power. It is conceivable that to protect vulnerable Senators that could be harmed by having to vote for a Trump appointee prior to the election, he will hold hearings before the election to gauge the political winds and hold off on the actual vote until after the election. Those that are re-elected are safe, those that are not have nothing to lose. The question then becomes a matter of conscience as to how individuals may vote, a commodity that unfortunately seems to be in short supply in the current political arena.
It would be a real insult to our democratic ideals if the Republicans lose the White House and their majority in the Senate but go ahead and confirm a Trump appointee.
There are many scenarios that could play out. I have no idea what will happen. The Republicans have a three seat majority. If three Republicans vote against a nominee, the Vice President would be the tie breaker. The Democrats would need to convince at least four Republicans to vote against a nominee, something that will be difficult to do should the nominee be a truly qualified jurist.
It seems that for the Democrats to stop the appointment of another conservative Justice, thus giving them a 6-3 advantage on the Court, they need to play hardball.
During the last four years the institutions of our government have been abused, even debased, in the pursuit of power by Mr. Trump and Mr. McConnell. To play the same game, some advocate for the Democrats to say that should the process ignore the election results that they will expand the Court to include more Justices. The law designating the number of Justices can be changed by a majority vote.
Personally, I think this is wrong. It would never stop as eventually one party loses the majority and the other looks to regain the upper hand. Our system of government has been under assault for four years, messing with the Supreme Court would be the beginning of the end of any restrictions on changing the rules to suit one party and undermining everything we used to hold as important to our fundamental system of government.
It may also backfire in that some voters may vote against the Democrats if they threaten to expand the Court.
There are some twists and turns that could influence the outcome. Two Senate institutionalists are retiring this year. Senators Lamar Alexander (TN) and Pat Roberts (KS), with no debt to pay to Mr. McConnell, or to Mr. Trump, may put the traditions and unwritten norms of the Senate and the judiciary above party politics. Should Senators Lisa Murkowski (AK) and Susan Collins (ME) stick to their avowed decision to oppose a nominee that would be the four votes needed to stop this move.
Another wild card vote comes from Arizona where Senator Martha McSally is currently behind her Democrat opponent former astronaut Mark Kelly. Since Senator McSally is an interim appointee (she fills the seat that belonged to John McCain), if Mr. Kelly wins the election he would be seated by the end of November bringing down the Republican advantage in the Senate.
Numerous possibilities will be floated in the coming weeks. There are no arguments to be made or scenarios to play out should Mr. Trump get re-elected and Mr. McConnell retain his majority in the Senate. There would be nothing that could, or should, stop Mr. Trump from seating his third appointee. Mr. Trump will campaign on this issue and try to make it a referendum that he thinks will help him win. Of course he wants the campaign to be about anything that distracts from his horrifying dereliction of duty mismanaging the pandemic and the loss of over 200,000 of our fellow citizens.
However the next few weeks unfold, two things are certain. Our nation lost a truly historic presence in the Supreme Court and an already wild and improbable election cycle where anything can happen just got even wilder and more unpredictable.

Recent Comments