Monday, March 18, 2024

What Happened With the ERA?

 

 

Since March is Women’s History Month, I thought it was time to look at where we’ve been, where we are going, and discuss what might lie ahead. Women have come a long way down the road, as they say, but the road remains steep, full of pot-holes, detours, and switchbacks, as I see it. If you are a woman who looks at the world through rose-colored glasses and applauds the fact that women now head universities, have been propelled into space, and have long been Cabinet Secretaries and Governors, I can say okay but..? What else could they have done were not other obstacles put in their path? We have not yet seen our first female president. Women still face workplace discrimination and suffer a wage deficit when compared to men, and women of color find even more disparities.

When the Founding Fathers created the rules for the first United States of America’s national elections, only white males who owned property could vote. By 1850, the government dropped the property requirement and permitted states to set their specific rules; most continued with the male-only rule. As women’s suffrage became more of an issue at the beginning of the twentieth century, women took to the streets to demand their individual rights and the right to vote. Finally, on August 18, 1920, the 19th Amendment was ratified. It guaranteed the right to vote for women. Native American women were granted the same right a few years later, in 1924.

Despite having the right in law, women of color, especially black women, rarely could exercise their right to vote because of the passage of laws that made voter registration more challenging. Constitution tests, poll taxes, and intimidation all were used to hold down the free exercise of these rights. Similar tactics continue in many states under Republican control today.

As soon as suffrage passed, Alice Paul, a leader in the movement, proposed that in 1923 an Equal Rights Amendment be added to the Constitution. Her proposal was short and succinct. Such a proposal was introduced annually but was never passed by Congress, so in 1943, the Congress received a revised version that said:

Section 1: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or byany state on account of sex.
Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, byappropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3: This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

The wording was eventually changed, as noted below:

Beginning in the 113th Congress (2014-2015), the text of the ERA ratification bill introduced in the House of Representatives has differed slightly from both the traditional wording and its Senate companion bill. It reads:

“Section 1: Women shall have equal rights in the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2: Congress and the several States shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3: This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.”

The addition of the first sentence specifically names women in the Constitution for the first time and clarifies the intent of the amendment to make discrimination based on a person's sex unconstitutional. The addition of "and the several States" in Section 2 restores wording that was drafted by Alice Paul but removed before the amendment's 1972 passage. It affirms that enforcement of the constitutional prohibition of sex discrimination is a function of both federal and state levels of government.

It is interesting to also note that in 2011, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia remarked, that the Constitution does not protect against sex discrimination.

The Washington Post notes Scalia gave this analysis of the 14th Amendment back in September. Furthermore, his position on protection from discrimination on the basis of gender was exhibited in 1996, when he was the only justice to dissent from the Supreme Court decision to end the Virginia Military Institute's 157-year-old, state-supported tradition of only accepting male students.

Marcia Greenberger, founder and co-president of the National Women's Law Center, told the Huffington Post that Scalia's most recent remarks were "shocking in light of the decades of precedents and the numbers of justices who have agreed that there is protection in the 14th Amendment against sex discrimination, and struck down many, many laws in many, many areas on the basis of that protection."

(This remark was made before the court decisions in Windsor in 2013 and Obergefell in 2015 striking down the Defense of Marriage Act and upholding same-sex marriages. Scalia wrote minority dissents in both cases.)

The Equal Rights Amendment, proposed in 1943, finally passed both the Senate and the House by the required majorities in 1972 and then sent to the states for ratification with a seven-year deadline to accomplish the task. When that date was not met, the deadline was extended to 1982. At that time, only 35 of the required 38 states (a three-fourths majority), had ratified the amendment.

As reported in ERA FAQThe Equal Rights Amendment has been reintroduced in every session of Congress since 1982. In the 115thCongress (2017-2018), ERA ratification bills were introduced as S.J.Res. 6 (lead sponsor, Senator Robert Menendez, D-NJ) and H.J.Res. 33 (lead sponsor, Representative Carolyn Maloney, D-NY). A bill to remove the ERA’s ratification deadline ex post facto and make it part of the Constitution when 38 states ratify was introduced as S.J. Res. 5 by Senator Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) and as H.J.Res. 53 by Representative Jackie Speier (D-CA).

By 2020, eventually the 38t th state, Virginia, ratified as Nevada, and Illinois did in the years prior. But then we have to look at politics even more closely as the end get in sight.  For years, Republicans fought the Amendment, a departure from their early support.  A movement attributed to Phyllis Schlafly, a Republican activist in the 1980s who claimed the ERA would deprive women of their rights, created an organization called STOP to derail ratification. She and others claimed that women would be subject to the draft and lose other privileges they long enjoyed, such as the right to stay at home. In the current Congress, only Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine supported these efforts; their Leader Senator Mitch McConnell strongly opposed them.

But, wait, there is more! None other than DJT (the former president) and his Department of Justice, starting in 2017, set out to stop any attempts to certify this amendment. They argued the extensions were illegal and that if some wanted the ERA to pass; the process needed to start again from the beginning. (Hey, guys, it has been 100 years in the trying!!) Their efforts succeeded, so the three-state rule that added Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia, and had taken so much effort to achieve was negated when the national archivist refused to certify the votes. At the same time, Attorney Generals in some red states tried to pull back the previous state approvals. Five states have now attempted unsuccessfully to rescind a previous approval: ID, KY, NE, SD, and TN. The states that have never ratified the ERA are AL, AR, AZ, FL, GA, LA, MO, MS, NC, OK, SC, and UT. We might note also that many of these same states restrict voting access and reproductive freedom.

Why is the passage so important?  Just think of the rights that have already been lost and those that are threatened, such as abortion, IVF, and contraception.  Consider equal pay for equal work and the right to speak out. As Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster. reported recently in MS Magazine voters have concerns about the following:

“Seventy-four percent of voters support a person’s right to make their own reproductive decisions, including abortion, contraception and continuing a pregnancy. 

Threats to democracy and abortion/women’s rights were the second and third top-of-mind issues for all voters after inflation. 

Fifty-nine percent of voters consider themselves feminists.

Voters are overwhelmingly in support of the ERA: It is a universal value for Democrats and very strong with Independents, especially Independent women voters. 

“Without a fundamental right to equality, we won’t have an equal society,” said Zakiya Thomas, president and CEO of the ERA Coalition and the Fund for Women’s Equality. Thomas recounted the significant value of the diversity and equal economic opportunities the ERA could bring about. 

“If equality and the Equal Rights Amendment, in particular, weren’t so important, they wouldn’t be fighting so hard to keep it from us,” said Thomas––referencing that the forces fighting against reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights.”

So, this is an election year, and as voters, we all have choices to make. Are you registered? If not, get registered. Do you know your polling place; will you vote by mail? Whichever – just VOTE. Have you ever asked yourself, why should there be such a battle to keep this straightforward measure from being ratified? Why indeed? Those who say abortion can be passed into law by legislation should look at the ERA and think sobering thoughts. None of this is easy. Opposing oppression in any form is difficult.

Till next week, Peace!

Monday, March 11, 2024

The State of the Union- 2 Views


Does it sometimes appear to you that Americans are living in separate bubbles or parallel universes that seldom communicate?

This was never more obvious than when I watched President Biden give his State of the Union (SOTU) address to Congress and the American people. His words were strong, his delivery was forceful, and his style was combative, leaving no doubt that ‘fighting Joe” was ready to take on his predecessor, as he called him, once again. Described by Peter Baker in the New York Times as:

“This was not Old Man Joe. This was Forceful Joe. This was Angry Joe. This was Loud Joe. This was Game-On Joe.

In an in-your-face election-year State of the Union address, President Biden delivered one of the most confrontational speeches that any president has offered from the House rostrum, met by equally fractious heckling from his Republican opponents.”

Although never mentioning his name, Biden stated that allowing a person who would give Russian President Putin free rein was not now, and should never be an option. He spoke of history and the days before America entered World War ll, and even mentioned Ronald Reagan, possibly reaching out to Independents and disaffected Haley voters. He promised if given a Democratic House and Senate majority, he would work to codify abortion rights as the law of the land. Chastising the Supreme Court for some of their recent decisions, he reminded them of the power of women voters. (Many Democratic women legislators wore white both this year and in 2020 to signify fighting for women's rights and reproductive freedom.)

Biden sparred with raucous Republican members who called out about various proposals around tax reform and border security. He ignored the lack of decorum, as some members, such as MTG, wore Maga campaign gear and touted crime by illegal immigrants. Some pundits noted that the once dry-as-a-bone recitation of successful programs and suggestions for new proposals has almost turned into a call-and-response repartee. The president, anticipating such pauses, built into his speech some ad-libs to address these interruptions. Condemned by some as giving more of a campaign speech than a report to the nation, the president’s defenders countered that the room had changed, so the speech needed to meet the new normal.

The President spoke about the problems with the war in Gaza, the Israeli response, Hamas, and the plight of the Palestinians. He inferred a ceasefire was upcoming; many have noted his desire to have this in place before the start of Ramadan this week. I certainly hope this happens.

(Food is being delivered in a modest but inefficient way with airdrops, but so much more needs to happen. US military forces will soon create a landing site on the Mediterranean Sea bordering Gaza to allow food and medical supplies to be delivered by naval vessels since other avenues have been blocked. This will take some time, hopefully, it will be ready before full famine sets in.)

Biden also noted that some are trying to rewrite the story of January 6th, but indicated that the American people know and will continue to remember what really happened that day when the actions taken were not those of patriots but those who wished to destroy the American system. Democracy is at stake in the upcoming election he claimed and the American people will have a clear choice.

Although there were a few word stumbles and the unfortunate use of the word “illegals”, Biden shut down the right-wing media and Maga storm claiming he was a mumbling, out of touch leader afflicted by stumbling senior moments. On the day of the State of the Union, the Maga campaign aired a doctored campaign ad seeming to show the president could not finish a sentence, when in the actual speech, he had paused to make a point. Sadly, I assume that this will be the first of many such attempts by the right, even as their candidate, now firmly headed to the nomination since Nikki Haley dropped out, is making ever wilder statements on the stump.

Moving forward to the usually lame Republican response, we were instead met with remarks by the youngest Republican Senator, a woman from Alabama. Kaie Britt did not appear at a lectern as is customary, but spoke from her kitchen table as she tried to meet women where she said they and their families discussed important issues, such as meeting their budgets and planning for the future. If she had stopped there, that might have passed as an okay response, but her delivery, in an overly emoting and sometime breathless style, found by many to be cringe-worthy caused some to ask what the point was. The style, described in the New York Times as jarring:

“With a sunny, inviting smile, Senator Katie Britt of Alabama welcomed Americans into her kitchen on Thursday night.

Many soon backed away nervously.

In the Republican Party’s official response to President Biden’s State of the Union address, Ms. Britt delivered a jarring speech that toggled between an increasingly strained cheerfulness and a fierce glare as she gave ominous warnings about illegal immigration.

Ms. Britt, 42, has been seen as a rising Republican star and floated as a possible running mate for former President Donald J. Trump. But in the biggest moment of her fledgling political career, she delivered a tonally uneven speech that was made more unusual by the setting of her own house in Montgomery, Ala., where she sat at her kitchen table and painted a dark picture of an America in decline.

“Our commander-in-chief is not in command,” Ms. Britt said. “The free world deserves better than a dithering and diminished leader.”

 

The selection of the 42-year-old Senator was supposed to contrast age-wise with the president and make up for the male dominance in the Republican Congressional delegations, however, her phrasing and speech patterns, seen by some as “fundie” or following fundamentalist guidelines for women, turned off many as noted below in the Times. Her dramatic recitation of the sex trafficking of migrants (which reprised a twenty-year-old Republican story and talking point) seemed out of context to many.

“But the scene seemed to confuse viewers on social media, where Ms. Britt was mocked by some for using a dramatic, breathy voice to deliver critiques of the president.

“Under his administration, families are worse off — our communities are less safe, and our country is less secure,” she said. “I just wish he understood what real families are facing around kitchen tables just like this one.”

 

Writing in the Atlantic, Elaina Plott Calabro noted the following about the Senator:

 

“It was just five days ago that Newt Gingrich was imagining the possibilities for Britt’s future, framing the freshman senator from Alabama’s coming rebuttal to President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address as her “big audition.” “It will be interesting to see if Britt rises to the occasion,” the former House speaker had mused to a New York talk-radio host. “If she does, it will be a major step up in her potentially being Trump’s vice-presidential candidate.”

(After the speech, Gingrich had no comment.)

 

“You might not have known it from Katie Britt’s State of the Union rebuttal last night—a performance derided by members of her own party as “bizarre” and “confusing”—but up until then, Britt had distinguished herself in the Senate with a reputation for being startlingly, well, normal.

Her own Senate colleague’s clumsy assessment of the speech seemed to reinforce precisely the stereotype of the GOP that Katie Britt, in being tapped to deliver the party’s response to Biden, was theoretically meant to counteract. “She was picked as a housewife, not just a senator, somebody who sees it from a different perspective,” Tuberville told reporters today. (Britt’s office did not respond to an interview request, but in a statement to Business Insider, her spokesperson said: “Joe Biden angrily screamed for an hour and was roundly praised for a ‘fiery’ speech. Katie Britt passionately made the case on the need for a new direction and is being criticized by the liberal media. Color me surprised.”)

Maybe it was bad coaching or poor talking points, but the rebuttal did not fly well. Do we live in such different Americas that some thought her remarks would resonate with insecure suburban women or stay-at-home parents on the prairie? I do not know for certain, but she offered no comfort that a Republican administration would change anything or improve the immigration picture at the border, especially as she voted against the long-awaited compromise worked out in the Senate, but killed by words from DJT. How would Republicans who tout tax cuts for the wealthy bring down food costs or make housing more affordable? Since they wish to destroy Obamacare, what is their alternative suggestion?

Where do we go from here? The campaigns are just starting in earnest now; hang on for a long and bumpy ride to November!

Til next week- Peace!

Monday, March 4, 2024

Golden Sneakers, Tees, and Democracy

 

You know the former president always has some kind of game going, whether it is a scheme like his real estate courses and universities or merchandise such as steaks and water. The latest grift involves garish and pricy golden sneakers embellished with a "T", stars, and stripes of red, white, and blue. One can choose either low tops or high tops with the latter costing $399.00. In a speech in South Carolina recently, DJT pushed the "merch", as they say, by touting the appeal of the sneakers and his indictment tee shirts to the African American community. Claiming they knew a lot about indictments, and were thus more attracted to the shirts (which included his mug shot) than perhaps others. He claimed his indictments made more black people like him because they have been discriminated against and they can now view me as I am being discriminated against (with his 91 indictments). 

Reporting by CNN noted:

“Black conservatives, Trump told the crowd gathered for the gala hosted by the Black Conservative Federation, "understand better than most that some of the greatest evils in our nation's history have come from corrupt systems that try to target and subjugate others to deny them their freedom and to deny them their rights. You understand that. I think that's why the Black people are so much on my side now, because they see what's happening to me happens to them."

The GOP front-runner also claimed that Black Americans have "embraced" his mug shot more than anyone else.

"The mug shot, we've all seen the mug shot, and you know who embraced it more than anybody else? The Black population. It's incredible. You see Black people walking around with my mug shot, you know they do shirts," he said."

"Trump, who has a history of using racist language, railed during his remarks against President Joe Biden, his likely general election rival, accusing him of being a "vicious racist."

He attacked Biden over the 1994 crime bill – which Biden has repeatedly defended his role in but has also pointed to mistakes in the legislation – and over comments the president made in which he recalled working with segregationist senators.

"On top of everything else, Joe Biden really has proven to be a very nasty and vicious racist. He's been a racist," Trump said.

Many African Americans viewed the former president's remarks as insulting. The Biden campaign quickly responded, as reported in the same CNN article:

In a statement following Trump's remarks, Jasmine Harris, the Black media director for the Biden campaign, called the former president "an incompetent, anti-Black tyrant," noting his meeting with a White nationalist shortly after declaring his 2024 candidacy.

Prior to the event, Biden's campaign had put out a statement calling Trump "the proud poster boy for modern racism." It detailed what it described as his "racist record," which included his role in the Central Park Five case and his promotion of the “birtherism" conspiracy theory that targeted former President Barack Obama.

"Come November, no matter how many disingenuous voter engagement events he attends, Black Americans will show Donald Trump we know exactly who he is," Harris said."

Jennifer Rubin, writing in the Washington Post recently, also looked at the issue of racism in the Maga campaign. In this article, she noted:

"The Republican Party wants to have it both ways: appeal to white Christian nationalists and peel off Black voters from Democrats; play up the "great replacement" theory while wooing Hispanics. MAGA Republicans often pull off such jaw-dropping hypocrisy because the docile right-wing media will not ask Republicans hard questions nor point to obvious contradictions. However, now and then, the gap between Republicans' pretense of decency and their real attitudes toward Black people and immigrants becomes glaring to all but the most rabid MAGA voters.

On race, Trump's apologists, including those in "respectable" conservative quarters, insist — despite his rhetoric (e.g., "s-hole countries," "very fine people on both sides") and downplaying endemic racism in policing — that we cannot assume he is a racist. We also are expected to ignore, one supposes, his vendetta against the Central Park Five, his real estate company's history of discrimination, and his failure to appoint a single African American to the circuit courts or the Supreme Court. His slurs against Black female prosecutors and vivid social media posting showing him attacking Black Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg get brushed off by his supporters, who portray him as the real victim."

In other remarks on the campaign trail at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), DJT appeared to go off the rails and move away from his stump speech to predict an apocalyptic future should he not be elected:….

As reported by Jonathan Swan and Michael C. Bender in the New York Times:

"If Mr. Biden is re-elected for a second four-year term, Mr. Trump warned in his speech, Medicare will "collapse." Social Security will "collapse." Health care, in general, will "collapse." So, too, will public education. Millions of manufacturing jobs will be "choked off into extinction." The U.S. economy will be "starved of energy" and there will be "constant blackouts." The Islamist militant group Hamas will "terrorize our streets." There will be a third world war and America will lose it. America itself will face "obliteration."

On the other hand, Mr. Trump promised on Saturday that if he is elected, America will be "richer and safer and stronger and prouder and more beautiful than ever before." Crime in major cities? A thing of the past.

"Chicago could be solved in one day," Mr. Trump said. "New York could be solved in a half a day there."

(Author note -I watched this video. And this was spoken in such a smarmy way, one, only a carnival barker could appreciate. Snake oil sales, anyone? I guess he will just wave his magic wand, the one that takes away our rights as he destroys the Civil Service and our social safety net, or invokes martial law or whatever.

Streets paved with gold–the better to walk on with one's golden sneakers, maybe? The American public, in some places, seems to be buying this propaganda!  As for solving the issues in the cities, remember when he wanted to send troops into Portland? It could well get worse, should he be elected and not have anyone in the Oval Office to tell him NO!)

The reporters provided some fact checking with this article and said:

"In his 2020 campaign, Mr. Trump warned that Mr. Biden would "confiscate your guns," and "destroy your suburbs." He predicted that the economy would sink into a depression worse than the 1930s Great Depression and that the "stock market will crash." A Biden presidency, he predicted four years ago, "would mean that America's seniors have no air conditioning during the summer, no heat during the winter and no electricity during peak hours." And, he warned in July 2020, "you will have no more energy coming out of the great state of Texas, out of New Mexico, out of anywhere."

Some of those past predictions are now checkable, and have turned out to be fictions. The stock market has hit record highs under the Biden administration. Guns haven't been confiscated. Air conditioning is as good or bad as it ever was. And under Mr. Biden, the United States is producing more oil — not only more than it did under Mr. Trump but more than any country ever has."

The fact-checking as above is often missing from reporting.  Major media outlets seldom challenge these wild statements on the campaign trail as the campaigner takes no questions.

Jennifer Rubin, writing in the Washington Post, notes that the former president is losing many voters in the Republican primaries, with only 60% in SC, 50% in Iowa caucuses, and under 60% in NH, even with only token opposition. When a person, claiming incumbency cannot barely win over half of his most committed voters, trouble is in the air.

Rubin further notes that there are Republicans and others out there who can be reached by President Biden:

"Country club Republicans, small-business owners, and many other voters live orderly lives, follow the rules, and rely on stable government with predictable laws and economic policies. With GOP state parties and the House caucus in constant turmoil, Trump's rants flooding social media, and the real risk he will be convicted, Republicans do not offer sane, orderly government. No wonder former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley has associated Trump with "chaos."

Biden will seize every opportunity to revisit the chaotic Trump years: fights with allies, a daily barrage of insane tweets, bizarre media conferences, the coronavirus running rampant, spilling classified information (even before leaving office!), and schools closing. (They reopened under Biden.) And, worst of all, he instigated an insurrection, plunging the Capitol into violence and threatening his own vice president's life."

Tonight, the Supreme Court suggested it will have a decision announcement tomorrow. Many assume that the Supreme Court's decision will be about the concern of prohibiting an insurrectionist from running for the highest office in the land. Most conclude that the Court will allow DJT to appear on the state election ballots in question.

However, on the immunity issue that the Appeals Court so tightly summarized against the defendant, causing many to guess the Court would pass on a ruling, the experts were wrong as the Court this week took up a narrow review of the matter, setting oral arguments for April 22nd, seven weeks from now. Thus, in their own sweet partisan way, they further delayed the insurrection trial, quietly fulfilling the wishes of the former president, who still hopes to be elected and make these unpleasant trials and indictments disappear.

(But, wait, there's more – a small matter of fines, fees, and other assessments coming due to the tune of half a billion dollars or so from the two civil trials– AND he says he cannot pay this – stay tuned for the next drama in this saga.)

Watch out, Justices, your party stripes are showing under those robes, leaving many, such as myself, to further doubt the fairness of this and future rulings. Enough for tonight- it is getting dismal out there!

Til next week-Peace!

Monday, February 26, 2024

CPAC and the USA

 

The Conservative Political Action Conference held its annual gathering at The National Harbor site just outside of Washington DC this week. And, as usual, it gathered lots of "fringy right-wingers". However, this year there were even more odd folks than before as Christian Nationalists, anti-democracy groups, white nationalists, and even Nazis mingled among the crowds. They targeted the younger attendees, and according to some at NBC News, found a ready audience for their conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic views. Seen also were followers who attended the Unite the Right Rally and other White supremacist protests. A self-defined conservative and conspiracy theorist who spoke at a panel moderated by Steve Bannon also called for the end of democracy. The person, Jack Posbeic, called for democracy to be replaced by a cross, then later claimed he was just being sarcastic. Watch what "they say" and what "they do."

Then, of course, some spoke before the convention as they auditioned for the spot of Vice-President should DJT become the party's nominee for president; (for many a foregone conclusion). The convention even held a straw poll to allow attendees to note their favorites. This poll ended in a tie with 15% of those voting choosing Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota and 15% choosing Vivek Ramaswamy. Former Democratic congressional representative (and former presidential candidate) Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii came in third with 9% followed by NY congressional representative Elise Stefanik with 8% (sorry, Elise, looks as if you sold out for nothing here-and that dress was ugly!). Two African American maybes, Senator Tim Scott of SC, and Byron Daniels of Florida, came in with 8 and 7% respectively. Senator Scott, was the humiliation worth the chance? Former candidate for governor, Kari Lake of Arizona, who had not spoken when the poll was posted, was not listed. Senator J.D. Vance, who has also been vying for the position, apparently has not made the cut yet. J.D., after your recent comments about the Constitution and the Court, you so don't belong there!   

As reported in the Guardian  "Do I think there were problems in 2020? Yes, I do," Vance told ABC News's George Stephanopoulos, adding it was "ridiculous" to ask if he would have certified the results as Mike Pence had done and told the host he was "obsessed with talking about this". In a contentious interview, the senator also suggested that Trump should ignore "illegitimate" US Supreme Court rulings.

That remark came after Vance was questioned about a 2021 podcast during which he said he would advise Trump to "fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people" and ignore legal rulings against it.

"We have a major problem here with administrators and bureaucrats in the government who don't respond to the elected branches ... If those people aren't following the rules, then of course you've got to fire them, and of course, the president has to be able to run the government as he thinks he should," Vance said.

"The constitution says that the Supreme Court can make rulings ... but if the Supreme Court said the President of the United States can't fire a general, that would be an illegitimate ruling," added Vance, whose wife, Usha Chilukuri Vance, has previously clerked for John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh, the supreme court justices."

It seems that the Senator from Ohio does not believe in our system of separate branches of government with checks and balances.

It is also true that the former president does not believe in them either, as his speeches frequently talk of getting retribution against any who thwarted his plans when he was in office. He speaks frequently about remaking the civil service subject to presidential whims. In remarks to the National Religious Broadcasters International Media Conference recently, DJT equated the left with communist and fascist forces who would come and take away your churches, tear down your crosses, and replace them with social justice flags.

And, as reported by PBS: "Remember, every communist regime throughout history has tried to stamp out the churches, just like every fascist regime has tried to co-opt them and control them," Trump told hundreds of cheering attendees at the National Religious Broadcasters International Christian Media Convention in Nashville. "And, in America, the radical left is trying to do both."

The Christian media gathering, where sponsors distributed free red and white baseball caps emblazoned with "Make America Pray Again," was exceedingly friendly territory for the former president, whose address often felt more like a rally than a staid convention speech.

"The left is trying to shame Christians," Trump said. "They're trying to shame us. I'm a very proud Christian."

"When he came onto the scene, people were skeptical," said Troy Miller, president, and CEO of the National Religious Broadcasters. "But I think, as they've learned more and listened to Donald Trump speak, the one thing I hear all the time from people … is that they really feel like Donald Trump understands them and that's the biggest connection that people make is, 'This is a guy in politics who gets us, who understands us, who doesn't talk like he's an elitist and talk down to us.'"

The former president won the SC primary yesterday with approximately 60% of the vote to opponent Nikki Haley's 40%. This does not seem like a strong showing in a very red state for someone who pretends he won the election in 2020. In his rambling acceptance speech, where he again spoke about the hordes of immigrants coming from mental institutions and jails as they cross the border, he noted he wanted the race to be over. (He also forgot the name of the SC governor, forgot to mention one of his sons when naming family members, lied about "his victory" in 2020, and lied about being endorsed by the UAW – which already endorsed Biden). He tried to secure control of the Republican National Committee, (after urging chair Ronna McDaniel's out) naming his choices to run the party, including his daughter-in-law, and bringing back Kellyanne Conway. The Party, which he described as unified, is not sure on this motion.

The draft resolution, in part, states: "The Republican National Committee and its leadership will stay neutral throughout the Presidential primary and not take on additional staff from any of the active Presidential campaigns until a nominee is clearly determined by reaching 1,215 delegates."

A second resolution also prohibits the party from paying his legal fees. Members in the down-ballot races looked at fundraising gaps and showed concern about competing in November.

The Economist noted this week that the left had better get busy and counter such movements and messages as shown above. Europe is extremely concerned after recent anti-NATO and pro-Putin remarks made by DJT. While some point out that primary voters are the base of committed followers, the general election will not have the same makeup and will be a more diverse electorate, others are concerned that parts of his divisive messages are getting through to the voters who do not think America is working for them.

The Democratic Party cannot afford to lose votes or become complacent. I agree his campaign is unhinged and his messages are divisive, but I only have one vote. Democrats need to do a better job of reaching out to the younger voters, to disaffected communities such as Muslims and communities of color. Policies have been changed, and unemployment is low, as is inflation, but we aren't all the way there yet in the larger scheme of things. The resolution of border issues and the war in Gaza are two large hurdles for the president at this time. Biden needs to publicize that DJT killed the border legislation that was in the planning for months. He also needs to publicize the tuition forgiveness promises he made were turned down by petitions from Republican States, and loan businesses and eventually denied by the Trump Supreme Court.

I don't know what will happen, but Congress has to return and pass the spending bills or shut down soon. House Speaker Johnson sent everyone home rather than deal with the package negotiated by the Senate. Of course, should he try to resolve issues such as funding for Ukraine and elsewhere, and pass a budget, he might lose his seat. Country over party should be your mantra, Speaker Johnson.

"Til next week-Peace!

Monday, February 19, 2024

Truth-tellers and Liars


This weekend we celebrate Presidents' Day and remember two of our greatest presidents. One, President Abraham Lincoln, helped preserve the union and steered us through the Civil War. The other president, George Washington, our first president, is considered the Father of our country. Already famous as the General who pulled the country victoriously through the Revolutionary War, he was a simple choice to be the first president, once we had established a country with a Constitutional government.

After serving two terms, he announced he would not seek a further term. There were many calls for him to stay, but he chose to step down because he wanted this fragile country to follow the guidelines established by the founders. They wanted a more representative government and that could not be in place if the voters did not elect new leaders, as he saw it. England had a king who ruled for life; that was not what this new government wanted to have in place. Washington knew he had to be firm in his decision and push the country toward a democratic succession made by the voters. In his quest to nudge the country toward democracy and reinforce the Constitution, he considered the needs of the citizens, and the rules that were now in place, over any personal needs or ambitions, unlike many politicians today. After decades of service, he was ready to retire to his Virginia home in Mount Vernon.

Washington gave what we now refer to as a Farewell Address as he stepped down. It is described here by the National Constitutional Center. In 1796, he gave some warnings to his countrymen about relationships. In these remarks, he set the stage for future events and established a precedent for the peaceful transfer of power. Washington set forth three major themes. He warned against political factionalism as he saw areas of his country eager to set off against another in considerations of commerce, finances, and slaveholding.. He encouraged a push toward national unity and efforts to find common responses to shared problems. He also warned against threats from internal and foreign forces; those who would seek to disrupt this fragile union. The president, upon leaving office, showed his vision as he spoke out against the United States getting involved in foreign entanglements. Consequently, he encouraged neutrality and diplomacy in foreign affairs. This was over 228 years ago. Many of these remarks ring true now, centuries later.

Washington recognized the need for the country to grow, become stronger, and find strength in a common purpose. Unity between states would lengthen the roots for the national body to survive, he thought. Saying "To the efficacy and permanency of your union, a government for the whole is indispensable."

He also wanted to reinforce the nascent Rule of Law, then tenuously in place. He set forth cautious guidelines in financial affairs, warned against factious political parties, and encouraged education generally, and in public affairs. Since there were no national communication means, this address was not a formal speech but an essay and newspapers initially printed this Farewell Address. The first paper to print it was the Philadelphia Daily American Advertiser, and it was then shared with other newspapers across the country.

Apocryphally, Washington was known for his truth-telling as a young man; he finished his governmental career with the same theme. He might then have loudly decried some of the political ads we see today that skirt the truth and rely on lies and innuendo. How different this is from would-be leaders today who care little about the truth and appear to relish the lies they tell with apparent impunity. Our first president, in his warnings against factionalism, may have realized that centuries later we would have red states and blue states, conservatives vs. progressives, and authoritarians against those who support democracy.

Over the centuries, we have had good presidents and bad presidents, and threats to our union and our nation, but we have survived as a country. Some now are wondering if the schisms being encouraged by the right-wing, pseudo-patriots and foreign bad actors might break through our national unity, as tattered as it is today. How different might the elections of 2016 and 2020 have been without the interference of Russia, Iran, or China?

While we cannot undo what others have done to unravel our democracy, we are forewarned now and can put in place roadblocks to autocrats, dictators, and the like. Voters can speak up and speak out, sharing information with their neighbors. And most importantly, voters need to vote. As a country, the percentage of voters is usually low, even in national elections. Many residents (about 21% in 2017, according to Pew Research) are not even registered to vote. This needs to change and there is a simple remedy. Many of these voters say voting is a hassle, they don't like politics; they don't have time, etc. But, at least in states such as MD with no-fault absentee voting, one can sign up, receive a ballot, and vote from their home. Their ballot can be mailed in or dropped in a county ballot collection box. In 2020, according to electproject.org/202g, approximately 160 million people voted in the 2020 general election from among a population at that time of around 320 million. Others note that the elections of 2018, 2020, and 2022 have been among the three highest percentage turn-outs in history, so perhaps the negative trends are turning. I guess we shall see.

In other news, long-time Putin critic, Russian Alexei Navalny, died suddenly this week at his Arctic prison camp. Some think Putin now believes he no longer has to be concerned about international opinion and can continue to kill his opposition without restraint. Others believe the Republican Party and its presidential candidate are enabling these moves. Time will tell.

Til next week-Peace.

Monday, February 12, 2024

Courts, Ballots, Immunity!


This week the Federal Appeals Court three-judge panel finally released their ruling on the request of the former president to claim immunity from prosecution for any of his actions during the insurrection.

The ruling was lengthy but clear. The actions taken on January 6 were not in keeping with his presidential duties and he, as Citizen Trump, was not entitled to any more rights than any other criminal defendant.

The decision further said, as noted by the New York Times:

“At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches,” they wrote. “Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the president, the Congress could not legislate, the executive could not prosecute and the judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.”

After further discussion, the judges conclude in a unanimous unsigned decision:

“We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results,” the judges wrote. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.”

The opinion would send the case being appealed back to the DC Court of Judge Tanya Chutkin to proceed to trial unless further appealed. The defendant was given until February 12th to ask for the Supreme Court to step in and rule on this finding. Many legal minds discussed this ruling, and have concluded that this opinion is so well argued and final in its conclusions that the judges on the Supreme Court would have no case law to change or decision to edit and would likely leave it as stated, negating any decision on appeal.

George Conway, writing in The Atlantic, noted:

“In engaging in that analysis, the appeals court did something very important, from the standpoint both of bolstering its conclusion and of insulating its decision from Supreme Court review. The panel, as smart judges do, limited its analysis to the specific “case before us, in which a former President has been indicted on federal criminal charges arising from his alleged conspiracy to overturn federal election results and unlawfully overstay his Presidential term” (emphasis mine).

And so, the balancing question became: Does the nation’s interest in protecting democracy outweigh the danger that potential post-presidency prosecution might deter presidents from doing their job? When posed that way, the question admitted of only one possible answer: yes—by a country mile.:”

The public will soon learn whether the Supreme Court will take this appeal under advisement or decline to review the decision. I certainly hope that SCOTUS will affirm the appeals court decision and allow the criminal case to proceed apace.

The other major court case in town this week was the petition to keep anyone off the ballot who had engaged in insurrection as mentioned in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The states of Colorado and Maine, responding to voter complaints, each petitioned the Court to rule on the continued eligibility of the former president to appear on the ballot.        

Radio stations broadcast the hearings as the Supreme Court does not allow televised proceedings. That morning, the curious public lined up outside the Court hoping to be allowed to snag the few seats in the court allotted to them as interest in this topic was quite high. I feel DJT should never hold public office again and applaud the intention of the petitioners. However, I also believe that his personality is so unstable, that were he denied a place on the ballot, he could call out the fury of his small group of irrational conspiracy-minded followers who would again heed his bidding. While Constitutional questions such as these need to be decided, congressional legislation may be the best way to go. However, with Congress, as messed up as it has been recently, I doubt that such serious legislation would be possible.

Several Justices questioned the reasoning from the states and some wondered if this scenario could lead to blue states acting one way and red states another, resulting in serious confusion as to who qualified to appear on said ballots. Defenders of the ballot changes stressed the unique quality of the charge of insurrection and its rarity, while the justices looked toward the question of riots vs. insurrection and officer vs. presidential office. In the end, it appears that the cases were defended one way and heard in an entirely different mode by the Court. Several commentators noted this week that the Justices may even rule 9-0 against this petition. Several lawyers guessed the Justices were looking for an off-ramp, a loophole, or anything that could allow them to not favor this ballot change. Others have posited that if they ruled for the former president in this instance, they could they could then support the ruling of the appeals court, and maybe be less criticized as partisan. (One from column A and one from column B perhaps?)

Ruth Marcus, writing in the Washington Post, believes the Justices should hear the appeal, even as she thinks it will not be supported.

“The justices are going to be understandably leery of doing anything that looks like they are putting a thumb on the scale for, or against, Trump. But the unavoidable reality is that whatever course they choose has political reverberations. A decision to treat the case as if the calendar doesn’t matter carries political consequences as well.

We’re in uncharted territory here, with the likely GOP nominee facing an array of criminal charges. It is in the public interest for that liability, or as much of it as possible, to be determined before the election. If Trump is acquitted, so be it. If he is convicted, that might affect some voters’ choices, but it would not disqualify him from being elected or serving. Don’t the voters have a right to know if they are choosing a felon?”

 

For many, the Court is already at a questionable standing regarding its impartiality or inability to review cases based on law without a heavy finger on that supposedly fair scale of justice. Writing in Vanity Fair, Attorney Christian Farias of Inquest states “he has marveled at how much of his legal training has been rendered irrelevant by Chief Justice Roberts.” Not only does he fault the Justice for not adequately considering the swirling ethics questions, gifts, and trips, but he chides him for hiding behind judicial independence in his refusal to answer questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee. And, his article concludes, that in a city running on political capital, the court may be, by coming to unpopular conclusions on matters central to our democracy, running on empty.

We should have more clarity tomorrow when we find out if an appeal will be filed and, if so, if it will be accepted.

I seriously hope that speedy justice is served, and a criminal trial will take place soon. This man has avoided accountability his entire life, and I am so pleased to see that some delays he put in place are eroding.

News note: That is all for tonight. There are reports that Israel will bomb Rafah, the last safe haven for civilians in Gaza. The leaders have been warned to not do this by the US and many other countries. From what I can determine, there is no justification for these raids, and they should cease.

Till next week – hope for peace.