Monday, May 27, 2019

Stare Decisis: The Republican Party's Radical Counter Revolution

Consider 3 things:

1/ Recent laws enacted in  Missouri, Alabama and other Confederate states to undo Roe v Wade and outlaw abortion

2/ The Republican victory in denying Obama his choice for a Supreme Court nominee, which resulted in a majority "Trump Court" committed to over turning Roe

3/ The 1.7% margin of victory in Doug Jones' victory for the US Senate seat in Alabama over Roy Jones who was banned from an Alabama shopping mall because it was evident he prowled the premises in a search (often successful) for teen age girls. 

Judge Moore was forgiven his pedophile proclivities because, outside the urban centers of Birmingham, Montgomery and Huntsville, citizens loved him for spurning the First Amendment's separation of church and state (with sculptures of the 10 Commandments placed in court houses) and his endorsement of the 2nd Amendment, which those citizens knew was going to be violated, someday, by agents of the federal government who would swoop out of the sky in black helicopters and blue helmets to seize the guns of law abiding citizens and members of the Ku Klux Klan.



Arguments against "packing" the Supreme Court, voiced by otherwise liberal Democrats coalesce around the idea that the Court is a bastion of stability, an anchor to core principles, which abides over generations to protect the People and their Constitution against the vicissitudes of partisan struggle.

The Court, they argue, is neither Republican nor Democrat. There is no such thing, Chief Justice Roberts has said, as an "Obama justice" or a "Trump justice."

That, of course, is manifestly untrue. 

In fact, there is not only such a thing as  "Trump justice" but there is such a thing as "Trump justice" and, for that matter, Southern justice.

In the most recent case, "Franchise Tax Board of California v Hyatt" Justice Thomas speaking for justices Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch has declared the principle of stare decisis obsolete and inoperable. Kaput. History. Which is to say, legal precedent, settled law means nothing now. If the current Court disagrees with Roe or with Brown vs Board of Education, well then, those decisions mean nothing.

So how much does the Court now represent continuity, stability, a focus on that guiding star of the Constitution?

Of course, the whole idea of the Supreme Court justices simply calling balls and strikes once the Congress has established the strike zone is ludicrous. Anyone with the most passing familiarity with Court decisions knows the justices regularly make up a new strike zone. 
In Dred Scott, the Court decided Negroes were property and had no "standing" to sue in court. Where did that strike zone come from?  In Brown, the Court decided "separate but equal" is an absurdity, as separate is invariably unequal when it comes to public schools. Where in the constitution did that come from? In Roe, the Court found a right to privacy in the Constitution, a word never mentioned but only "implied" there. 

It was always an absurdity to claim what was so obviously untrue: That the justices "just follow the law" rather than the passions of the moment. 
The justices follow their own individual passions, or as they call them, their principles, and they cherry pick excuses from the Constitution exactly as preachers find support for whatever they want to believe in the Bible. You can find support for subjugation of the Black race in the Bible (the stain of Cain), for murder, for rape, for incest.  The Good Book and the Constitution are shape changing, morphing phantasmagoria. 

But we need a Supreme Court when Congress is divided and cannot or will not, out of cowardice or intransigence, make a decision.

One way to fix this would be to simply admit the Court is the most political of our branches, a group which can make decisions without worrying about adjusting what they want to do by what they perceive the citizens desire.  Knowing that, allow the President at the beginning of each of his 4 year terms to appoint 2 new justices, so by the end of two terms, the President has shifted the Court toward a more liberal or a more conservative make up, reflecting the drift of the ideology of the electorate.

This requires no Constitutional amendment and sets no fixed number of justices (which the Constitution does not set) but allows it to float.

Packing the Court may be something like the Great Compromise of 1850, which postponed the inevitable conflict over slavery for 10 years.

But, ultimately, these United States may have to face a larger issue: The center no longer holds.

We thought we settled the issue of whether or not the United States could remain united with the Civil War, but, to Mad Dog at least, it now appears this was wishful thinking. 

What drove the states into conflict, of course, was slavery, and what slavery required was the belief that Whites rightfully should rule Blacks and that Negroes were not, as Justic Taney said in Dred Scott, actually fully human. The idea of subhumans who could be whipped, sold, destroyed at the whim and will of superior White human beings was the foundation of slavery then and it persists as the foundational belief in the South, or at least in the rural South and in all those rural parts of America which constitute the "Alabama in between" parts of America whether that is Wisconsin, Pennsylvania or Missouri. 

And there are parts of the south, like the research triangle (Durham, Chapel Hill, Raleigh) where neurons connect in wonderful ways in mentating human beings who loathe the vicious racism they encounter daily. They even removed a statue of a confederate soldier in Chapel Hill. 

There are, of course, White folks living in Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana who are horrified by the Ku Klux Klan, by the idea that blowing up a Black church in Birmingham, Alabama was a good thing because it killed 4 Black girls before they could breed. The juries which convicted the White Birmingham bombers 37 years later had Whites voting for conviction.

Of course, in 1963, when the bombings happened, no South Carolina jury would convict the White KKK bombers. No South Carolina jury would have had a single Black member.  Murderers of freedom riders in those days, obviously guilty, were routinely acquitted. 

Douglas Jones argues in his worthy "Bending Toward Justice" that the arc of history is long but it truly does bend toward justice. 

And reading about the low life conspiracy theorist men who blew up that church, and reading about the society which supported them, either tacitly or vocally, either directly or indirectly, you can hope their form of Southern was like the rabid dog, dangerous, lethal, but staggering toward its own demise.

But, after the exhilaration of the conviction and imprisonment, of the meting out of justice, Jones, who was the prosecutor in the convictions of those Birmingham bombers,  runs for Senator against Roy Moore, a frothing pedophile, a soul mate of Strom Thurmond (who fathered a child with a Black twelve year old) and Moore, the sweetheart of the KKK leads Jones until the find moments of the election, when Jones finally manages to win by 1.7% of the vote. 

Rural Alabama voted overwhelmingly for Moore.

What this suggests is we are not on an arc bending inexorably toward justice but it suggests that the demon seed of racism is passed on generation after generation and cannot be expunged, that the South, despite the presence of "decent" and tolerant Whites, despite enclaves in North Carolina and Georgia,  is too thoroughly infected to be cured of the sepsis which festers beneath.

Would it not make more sense to simply admit what has become obvious: We gave it a mighty try. We tried to stick it out, but a bad marriage is worse than no marriage.

Let us take the West Coast and marry it to New England and the Middle Atlantic states down to the Potomac.  Pennsylvania could go either way. 
Let us keep Minnesota and Illinois and maybe Colorado. Let us take New Mexico, and maybe Nevada. Let this become the New Union of America, non contiguous in geography, and not completely homogeneous in philosophy, but close enough. And let us wish the Confederate States of America all the best.

They can have their Confederacy which forbids abortion, segregates schools, restaurants, hotels, swimming pools, water fountains and toilets. They can exclude non white immigration and they can do away with courts and simply organize lynching mobs. They can establish a church and put up the 10 commandments in all state buildings. They can have football teams which support universities rather than the other way round. They will have excellent hospitals in Texas, Tennessee and North Carolina which will be Whites only. 

Sail on South Carolina. You will be unperturbed by unpleasant thoughts imposed by outsiders. 

In New York and Oregon and New Hampshire, we will argue and we will debate whether we really want a mix of government option and private health care and we'll try to figure out whether we want to ban capital punishment. We'll fight about how to provide day care and how to provide the best education for the best price. We'll struggle with infrastructure and how to meet the ravages of earthquakes, mudslides and fire in California and how to keep the East Coast from submerging into the rising seas. 

But, at least, at our core, we'll be family in the New Union of America. 

People will, no doubt, pack up their guns and move from the North Country of New Hampshire and find more amenable communities in Georgia and Mississippi.

The main coast for the New Confederacy will be the Gulf of Mexico. They can drill in it and pollute it all they want. 


But the New Union of America will still have New York, Boston, Chicago, Minneapolis, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles.  We ought to be able to eek out an existence.

Peace. 


Monday, May 13, 2019

The Trouble with Joe

Joe Biden spoke in Hampton today.
The line formed an hour before he was due and the place was packed.
Anticipation was high.
People really love Joe.
Of course, for most of them, that love has grown from afar. 
This was a place to see him, touch him, etc.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?460665-1/vice-president-joe-biden-makes-campaign-stop-hampshire

I began to allow myself to hope: It will be tough beating Trump, given the strong economy and the fierceness of his support. But talking to the people around me today, I heard as much genuine affection for Biden as you see at Trump rallies.

When I asked two guys in their 70's why they like him, they grinned and shrugged their shoulders and could not say exactly why: "I just like Joe."

He arrived and began his stump speech, talking about how we've lost a sense of decency and how his father told him a job was more than a paycheck, it was about dignity.

He had a lot of anecdotes about things his father said, about the dignity and ennobling aspect of work, which evoked warm burbling about the times some of us can remember when there was fellowship, pride and a sense of contribution in jobs, whether it was turning out automobiles, steel or even operations at hospitals. A time when you might work for GM or Dupont or General Electric for 30 years. 

He launched into a joke based on a cartoon from the New Yorker. He started describing the cartoon--Barack used to kid me about it-- about a man sitting in an interrogation room with a bag of money he had stolen and--did I tell you this was from the New Yorker?--and he is saying "How was I supposed to know he was the job creator?" Polite laughter. I think I got it: The man had expected if he stole money from a rich guy he would be forgiven but if the rich guy is seen as a job creator, that's a crime. But most of the audience seemed confused. Laughed politely.


The gag went so nowhere I actually Googled it. The cartoon, actually, is funny. But you have to be able to describe it properly. And Biden could not. But he uses it in his stump speech. And he has more handlers than O'Rourke, Delaney and Gillibrand combined. Has nobody talked to him?

He righted himself and I thought: Okay, he's going to be okay now. But then he seemed to lose track of what he was saying. He'd forget the subject from the first part of his sentence by the second part. He'd flub his lines.  "We used to want to be an example of power; now we ought to show power by example," became, "We used to want to be example power by showing power."

Or something. 

It got to where I was feeling: Can't we help this guy somehow?

Questions came next and it got ugly.  The usual audience member who started off with several paragraphs about the experience of having a husband who developed early Alzheimer's and what it did to her family and to herself and to her husband and to their friends. I have to admit, my mind wandered waiting for her to find a question in all this.

But finally she asked what Joe would do to solve the Alzheimer's problem.  Joe sallied off into a long voyage about curing cancer, which had taken one of his sons, and which he had talked to Barack Obama about and got appointed to a task force called "The Moon Shot" for cancer, based on the premise that if America could send a man to the moon and return him safely back to Earth, then, by golly, we ought to be able to solve the cancer problem. So Joe traveled all over the globe, talking to people to learn how to cure cancer. And doing this, he discovered "cancer" is not just one disease but 240 different diseases. (Where that number came from is still a mystery to me.) But all you really have to do is to get scientists sharing information, which they currently do not do.

So here is the rub: 1/ Politicians who believe they know enough about science to solve scientific problems.  2/ The question was about Alzheimer's. 

The audience could, it is true, think, "Oh, well, he means, like cancer, all Alzheimer's needs is for scientists to start sharing formation."

But when you get to the point where the audience has to finish your thought for you, because you've lost the thread, this is not good.

Physically, his skull shows temporal hollowing, and he has a sort of worn out, gaunt look. He's that neighbor who coached your kids' baseball team, who sold Christmas trees at the local fire department tree stand, who marched in the Fourth of July parade and everyone likes him.  

But you are making allowances for him because, well, he's lost a step or two but, well, Hell, you have to like the guy.

My neighbor, who saw him speak in 20012, observed:  "He's not the same man. He used to be quick." Today, he was a little at sea. 

Last polls put him up by 18 points on his nearest competitor in New Hampshire. 
What that may reflect, if that poll is not just sheer baloney, if it really represents voter sentiment, may be a longing for a return to normal. A restoration figure. Someone who is the opposite of the mean spirited, nasty and divisive Trump.

Joe is certainly a swing away from Trump. 

But if New Hampshire does its job, if it really vets the candidates, Joe will do so poorly here, he'll fall out of the race. Trouble is, even in New Hampshire, it's only the small minority who is even thinking about 2020 or the primary. 


Sunday, May 12, 2019

Trump: His Living Gospel

"The psyche of the broad masses is accessible only to what is strong and uncompromising.
Like a woman whose inner sensibilities are not so much is under the sway of abstract reasoning but are always subject to the influence of a vague emotional longing for the strength that completes her being, and who would rather bow to the strong man than dominate the weakling."

Guess who wrote that?

You know it wasn't Donald Trump, because it has complete sentences and no internal repetition or digression. 
If Donald Trump had written it, it might go something like this:

"You know, I know you know, what we need. We really need it. It's not getting screwed. It's winning. We like winners, here. Not captives. Winners. Really. You know. People with the best words who don't get captured. So true.
Women like that  in a man. Especially if he's a celebrity. Women love me. So do Hispanics. Hispanics love me. Big time. Hispanic women love me especially. Miss Argentina could not keep her hands off me. They just love me. Hugely. 
And you know why? They like somebody they can't boss around. Somebody, really, who might just boss THEM around. Cause that's what women want, deep down. They do. They want winners. Not captives. They don't want to be captives.Well, maybe they do. I don't know. It's possible. But they want winners."

Or something like that.

But the Donald likely got that insight from somewhere. Hard to imagine him from drawing on life experience.

He keeps only one book on his bedside table. People say that. Just one book. Really, I saw it on Fox News. On the bedside table, next to his bed. Where he and Melania sleep. Well, where he sleeps. It's not clear the Secret Service trusts Melania to sleep with him.

Some people say she doesn't really like him that much. 
How they know that, I couldn't say. Despises him. Really. Can't see how anyone would know that. But people say that. They do. So sad. They do, though.

Where would he get that book, anyway?
Roy Cohn give it to him?
Or did he find it on his own?

It's pretty boring, really. The guy who wrote it did not even finish high school. He's, like, always explaining things most people learn in high school, as if it's some great insight he came up with himself: like people who are raised in poverty often are raised in dysfunctional families, because families need money and not having it makes them dysfunctional, and gross and mean and not very nice. 
It's the "Hillbilly Elegy" thing, only in 1923. Guys from the hood, or the hollow, just signifying.

Well, duh, Adolf. 
"Mein Kampf" is a little slow. I mean, you expect something more scintillating, actually, from the master of mayhem, but actually, pretty boring, sad to say, pretty pedestrian, or, as Hannah Arendt observed, "the banality of evil."



But, apparently, it speaks to Donald, who is nothing if not banal. 
He does have the best words, though. People say so.