Attack Greenland! Is he Crazy?

Troops from allies of the United States, including France, Germany, Norway, and Sweden, are being sent to Greenland to prevent an invasion of Greenland by the United States.

That is a fact, not some insane conspiracy. Actually, it is not the United States that wants to invade and seize Greenland; it is just Donald Trump.

He recently told all of us that the only constraints on him as president are his morality and his mind. He is telling us that the Constitution, laws, Congress, the courts, international law, voters, treaties, and so on do not apply to him.

I do not know what his rationale is for asserting that he is unconstrained, but it is clear that he is physically and mentally impaired.  He must be stopped. The only people who can stop him are his MAGA supporters and the feckless Republican Senators and Representatives who have, up to now, failed to honor their oath of office and their constitutional duties as an equal branch of government to provide a check and balance on an out-of-control president.

Supreme Court Must Decide: Is Trump An Insurrectionist?

I've heard a lot of prognostications that the Supreme Court will find some procedural justification to ignore the 14th Amendment and keep Trump on the ballot. That probably means they will ignore whether or not Trump is an insurrectionist.

If they do find some way to keep Trump on the ballot, maybe we can at least put to rest the farce that conservative justices are textualists and believe in originalism.

If they allow him on the ballot for some weak procedural issue, is it to much to ask them as individuals to state whether are not he is an insurrectionist as defined by the 14th Amendment?

The 14th Amendment does not require a jury trial or proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  If they leave Trump on the ballot, every voter will have to decide whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or gave aid or comfort to someone who did.  

As justices of the United States Supreme Court they have sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Their legal training, experience and oath to the Constitution should demand that they state clearly whether or not they believe that by the text of the 14th Amendment Trump is an insurrectionist or gave aid or comfort to an insurrectionist.

This issue it before the court and they swore an oath to defend the Constitution.  If they can't say if he is or is not an insurrectionist, what good are they?

The Election Should Decide Who Picks The Next Justice

 I do not agree with Senator McConnell's rule that an opening on the Supreme Court in a presidential election year should be filled by whoever wins the election that year.  Oh yeah, that was the rule last election.  Since that no longer works for him, he has a new rule this election.  Does anyone doubt that he would go back to his earlier rule if that worked better for him?  Or make up a new rule?

As I have suggested before, I would like laws that require some kind of bi-partisan vote on Supreme Court justices.How about requiring a super majority of 60 votes with at least 10 votes from outside the majority party?

But that is for the future.  

If  Trump wins the election, he can nominate the next justice. But...Since I believe Republicans stole a Supreme Court justice from President Obama, if they insist on forcing a Senate vote either before the election or after the election if Biden wins, then it is time to play hardball like the Republicans.

If Biden wins and Republicans insist on confirming a new justice this year, I suggest that Democrats declare that they will impeach this justice as soon as they can.  I don't believe they need any justification other than that seat on the court was stolen.

I know that opens the possibility that Republicans will do the same when they have a chance, but they show no principles now.  They will always do whatever suits their current needs.  Precedent be damned.  Norms be damned.  Principles be damned.  So what do we have to lose?  You have to stand up to bullies.

The hope is that Republicans will understand we can treat governing like a death match or we can try to govern with the understanding that for the good of the country we must try to work together.

Time to Move Dept of Justice out of the Executive Branch

Recent events have made it clear that the Attorney General and the Department of Justice should not be part of the executive branch.  They must be non-partisan.  People smarter than I am should come up with a plan, but I suggest they be moved to the judiciary.

The Attorney General could be chosen by a super majority of Supreme Court Justices (6 or more) from a list of candidates.  One candidate each from the president, the House and the Senate.  Congress would need a super majority vote (>60%) to choose its candidate.  If the House or Senate cannot agree on a candidate, the ABA could then suggest a candidate.

The Attorney General would be appointed for an 8 year term that starts in the year after the presidential inauguration. As the end of the term nears, the nomination process would begin again.  The current attorney general could be re-nominated.

The Justices could, with a super majority vote, remove the current Attorney General.  The process would then start to choose a new Attorney General to serve the remainder of the term.

The Chief Justice, working with the Attorney General, would submit a budget each year.  The budget should have protections to prevent appropriations being used to politically influence Department of Justice decisions.

We would also need a plan to fill and remove Justice Department positions that are now political appointees.  It is probably too much to expect the Supreme Court to oversee an operation of this size.  But I'm sure we can figure this out.

The idea is to remove politics from the administration of justice.  While this is probably idealistic, we should try.

While we are at it, lets make it law that a super majority of the Senate is required to confirm a Supreme Court justice.

Republicans Owe Democrats a Supreme Court Justice

If the Democrats win back the Senate this November, they should refuse to allow a Republican nominee to be added to the Supreme Court.

President Trump can nominate a new justice and Democrats should hold hearings, but Democrats should not vote to confirm the nominee.

The Republicans stole a Supreme Court Justice from President Obama and Democrats.  Until that theft has been repaid, Democrats should refuse to approve any Republican Supreme Court nominee.

I realize that this could lead to a political war that prevents any new justice from being added to the court until the presidency and Senate are both held by the same political party.

That would be terrible, but Republicans started this war.

President Trump could solve this problem by letting Democrats pick the next Supreme Court Justice, should there be one.

In fairness, if there are two openings in Trump's last two years, he can fill the second after he lets Democrats fill the first.

Once the stolen seat is returned to Democrats, we can all hope that both parties agree to nominate only centrists to the court.  Republican presidents can nominate and have confirmed qualified, center-right justices and Democratic presidents can nominate and have confirmed qualified, center-left justices.

We have to get back to working together to keep our democracy strong and stop needless, counter-productive political wars.

Don't Listen

This morning Fox News Sunday had an interview with Margie Phelps, a member of and attorney for the Westboro Baptist Church. This is the small group that stages those obnoxious demonstrations near the funerals of American service men and women killed in action.

She recently won a Supreme Court case that affirmed the First Amendment rights of the Westboro Baptist Church to express opinions that most people find to be disgusting.

I agree with the Supreme Court, but Ms. Phelps has given us the antidote to her groups hateful speech. She said that the Supreme Court put a megaphone to the mouth of her tiny church. She is wrong. They didn't do that. They only said that governments could not silence them. Her group has a megaphone only if the news media gives them coverage and we listen.

The answer is to not give these people the attention they crave. They are irrational and delusional. Reason is not going to change them and attention only reinforces their delusions. If no one listens, if no one stages counter protests, if we all change the channel when they are given news coverage, then news organizations will stop covering them . This won't mute their hate or cure their ignorance or diminish their delusional view that they speak for God. They just go back to being a nameless group of kooks no one pays any attention to.

The beauty of our system is that our Constitution prevents governments from deciding which speech should be heard and which should be suppressed. It leaves it to people to listen or not listen and make our own decisions.

I've heard what the members of the Westboro Baptist Church believe and totally reject those ideas. From now on I choose not to listen.

Free Speech. Not Priceless.

I was astounded when courts interpreted the Second Amendment while consciously ignoring the reference in the amendment to militias.

I was appalled when Congress passed a law that destroyed habeas corpus.

Now I'm speechless.

Today the Supreme Court some how decide that corporations, that previously had at least some of the same rights as an individual, actually have the constitutionally protected right to free speech.

And when I say I'm speechless, I'm actually speaking for all of us. We are all speechless. Our individual speech will now be drowned out by unlimited speech from corporations.

Politicians generally do not vote their consciences. They vote to please their constituents and their donors. Now corporate donors are no longer limited in the amount they can funnel to a candidate. Sure, we still have to vote, but the political discussion and process can be bought with huge sums of money. That happens all too much today. Starting tomorrow there are no limits on how much a corporation can spend to buy an election. No politician will be able to get elected without lining up huge sums of money from corporations. They will be bought and you and I are too poor to play in this game.

Corporations are not individuals, even though they may have been granted some of the same rights. They are not citizens. They can't be drafted. They can't serve on a jury. They can't vote. They can't marry (think about that). Or can they? Once they can buy elections, there is no limit to what powers they can give themselves. Their power will only be constrained by other large corporations.

We have been trying for decades to prevent individuals or large groups from buying elections and politicians. That is all gone.

You can imagine dire consequences of this ruling. Maybe we are making too much of this. But if we are correct and this is as bad as we think, once the tipping point is reached and corporations really control Congress, we won't be able to change it back.

I think the solution may be to change the law to make it clear that corporations are not people.

Let's Hear It For A Wise Latina Woman

Tomorrow, confirmation hearings will begin in the Senate for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Republics will make a show, just to show they can.

This morning on Fox News Sunday, Texas Senator John Cornyn questioned Judge Sotomayor's qualifications to be on the Supreme Court partly because of her often quoted comment "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Senator Cornyn strongly believes justice should be blind.

Supreme Court rulings are seldom nine to nothing. What accounts for this difference of opinion? Justices hear the same facts and come to different conclusions, often based on predictable ideological lines. Maybe some of the differences come from life experiences.

Also, there are eight men and one woman currently on the Supreme Court. There have only been two women Supreme Court Justices in our nation's history. This in a country that has about the same number of women citizens as men (actually, today women are in the majority). Those facts would suggest that, historically, male presidents and predominantly male Senates have decided that a man's legal opinion is better than a woman's.

So Senator Cornyn's opinion that the legal system should be blind to characteristics such as gender and race is noble, but these ideals don't seem to apply to the executive and legislative branches when it comes to judicial appointments.

Play Ball Or Stay Home

No one reads this blog. That's not a complaint. But since no one reads this blog I feel safe telling Republics something it doesn't look like they've figured out.

Republics believe that the next president may get 2 or 3 picks for the Supreme Court and are salivating that McCain will appoint another Alito or Roberts or Scalia. Guess what folks? Unless there is some big turn around, the Democrats will gain seats in the Senate in November. Democrats should insist that any Supreme Court nominees are centrists. Maybe they should demand that if they approve one centrist jurist, the second nominee must lean to the left.

The Supreme Court may be making decisions with only 6 or 7 justices, probably on conservative majority court. I would rather see 4 years of conservative rulings than watch Democrats help a Republic president add 2 or 3 young conservative justices who will distort the Constitution for 20 or 30 years.

Democrats should keep this plan secret until, if McCain is the next president, a seat on the Supreme Court becomes open. At that point they should make it clear that while the President nominates, the Senate must approve. Play ball or stay home.

I don't believe it would be in the best interests of the country to have a Supreme Court made up of all liberal justices, but a court of all conservatives is frightening.

You Can Have My Flintlock...

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

To my reading, the Second Amendment clearly states that the right of people to bear arms is linked to service in a Militia. Since “well regulated Militia”, as they existed in 1789 when the Second Amendment was written, no longer exist, the un-infringed right to bear arms no longer exists. Militias are archaic and references to them in the Constitution should be removed. The US Constitution is a magnificent document, but references to slavery had to be removed. The Second Amendment applied to an historical situation that no longer exists and it should be repealed.

But what I believe is unimportant, the Supreme Court is in the process of determining how the Second Amendment applies to a Washington, DC, ban on handguns. The high level arguments generally revolve around whether the amendment grants a collective right related to service in a Militia or an individual right.

The questions posed by the Justices in open court seem to indicate they believe the Second Amendment grants an individual right. I hope their decision does not upset the status quo which has allowed reasonable legislative restrictions on firearms. I don’t believe there are currently many laws that seriously infringe gun ownership for hunting, sport or self-defense.

If the strict constructionist justices on the Court rule that the Second Amendment grants an individual right, they will unleash a domestic arms race. “Infringe” is a strong verb, the kind strict constructionist judges like and all judges will find hard to circumvent. If residents of DC are “infringed” by a restriction that they cannot own handguns, although they can own long guns, certainly laws that allow ownership of semi-automatic weapons, but do not allow ownership of fully automatic weapons, “infringe” gun owners rights. How many other current laws will be challenged as infringing? If I can own a fully automatic assault rifle, why not a heavy machine gun?

If the Court rules the Second Amendment grants an individual right, will they try to allow for restrictions to the right? How will they do that? There are restrictions on the right to free speech, but given the clause that links arms to Militias, any weapon appropriate for a Militia would seem to be appropriate for an individual. Given the link to Militias, is a law against ownership of an RPG an infringement?

I guess a strict constructionist judge could rule that an individual has an un-infringed right to any firearm available to a citizen of 1789.*


* Maybe Charlton Heston had it perfectly right when in 2000 as president of the NRA he held a flintlock rifle over his head and said you could only take it from his “cold dead hands”.