Vote for Democracy ’24 #21

a political fantasy

(Photo by Lucas Sankey on Unsplash)

As I watch with growing alarm the parade of unqualified and corrupt cronies that DT is nominating for his administration, I have started to indulge in a political fantasy regarding Congress.

As has become more obvious with each passing day, DT is planning to grab all the political power possible to make money for himself and his already exorbitantly rich cronies, to cut government services for the citizenry, and to keep Congress and the courts from checking him.

The Republican majorities in both houses of Congress are very slim, so it will only take a small number of members to keep the Republicans from enacting legislation that DT demands.

During part of the Andrew Cuomo administration in New York, the State Senate swung from many years of being majority Republican to majority Democrat. However, several Democratic senators formed their own independent caucus, resulting in the Republicans still being able to maintain majority control.

I call on all Republican members of Congress who are non-MAGA and care about our democracy and governing for the good of the people to establish a caucus independent of the Republicans. Even if there were only a handful in each house willing to do this, it would give control of legislation to the Democrats and prevent gutting Social Security, our health care system, government services, and our tax system. It would also make it more likely that the Senate would reject DT’s nominees for positions that are meant to destroy the departments or agencies that they would head.

Maybe they could be called the Constitution Caucus. Or the Independent Conservative Caucus. Or the Protect Democracy Caucus. Or the Political Courage Caucus.

Whatever they chose to call themselves, they could join with Democrats to craft and pass reasonable budgets and legislation and keep the United States from degenerating into a kleptocracy, plutocracy, autocracy, oligarchy, or any of the other forms of government that are threatening us.

The United States Constitution established a federal democratic republic.

Congress needs to fulfill their duties to keep it.

It’s time for Republican members of Congress to step up and take a stand for the Constitution and the American people. While it’s true that these members could be primaried in their next election, these next two years are crucial for the country to continue to have a functioning federal government.

So, Congressional Republicans of conscience and courage, step up! I know I am indulging in a political daydream but, sometimes, fantasy can become reality.

Vote for Democracy ’24 #19

closing arguments

(Photo by Lucas Sankey on Unsplash)

With Election Day only a few days away, the two major party candidates for the US presidency have made their closing arguments to the American people. Because of the availability of early voting, vote-by-mail, and absentee ballots, millions have already cast their ballots, but many more millions will vote on Tuesday, November 5, and some eligible voters will not vote at all. The United States does not usually have high voter turnout and it will be interesting to see if this year is different. Levels of early voting have been very high, so perhaps election-day voting will be, too.

Vice President Kamala Harris gave her speech in front of a crowd of about 75,000 at the Ellipse in Washington DC, with the White House behind her, the same location where Donald Trump spoke at a rally on Jan.6, 2021, calling on his supporters to march to the Capitol where a violent mob broke in and tried to stop Congress from certifying the election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

In contrast to Trump’s diviseness, Harris gave a message of unity, explaining how she would be a president for all the people who would listen to differing viewpoints. She talked about her policy proposals for the economy and health care, including reproductive rights and elder care, and shared her biography and experience prior to the vice-presidency. While she was making a contrast with Trump, she was concentrating on a positive, unifying message, which is important as she has been reaching out to Republicans and other conservatives who are dedicated to the Constitution and the rule of law and are repulsed by Trump’s attacks on those principles.

Trump’s closing argument rally was held at Madison Square Garden in New York City which was at its capacity of 19,500. The rally went on for hours; the video link I shared here is the final 3 1/4 hours, which includes all of Trump’s 78-minute speech. The event was designed for Trump’s base of supporters and was quite openly racist, misogynistic, anti-immigrant, and divisive. Trump and the other speakers continued to vilify Trump’s opponents, attacking them personally in often vulgar terms and lying about them and their positions. There is no sense of working together to solve problems, only of seeking vengeance on anyone who disagrees with Trump.

It’s terrifying, especially because so much of Trump’s rhetoric is violent and we all know what happened four years ago when Trump tried to steal an election he had lost.

Donald Trump’s vision of America is dark place of grievance where a few rich and powerful men rule. Instead, I embrace Kamala Harris’s vision of the United States as nation of people of good will who work together within the structures of our laws and government to solve problems and uphold the common good, as the Preamble to our Constitution terms it to “promote the general welfare.”

I hope that all eligible voters will look to those values as they vote not only for president but for other federal, state, and local offices. We must vote to protect our rights and our democratic principles so we can continue to build vibrant, caring, and responsible communities.

Together, we can do this!

Vote!

One-Liner Wednesday: John Kelly on Trump’s fascism

(Photo by Lucas Sankey on Unsplash)

Retired US Marine general and longest serving chief of staff to Donald Trump when he was president “said that, in his opinion, Mr. Trump met the definition of a fascist, would govern like a dictator if allowed, and had no understanding of the Constitution or the concept of rule of law.” Source: New York Times (gift link to article) which backs up my recent post on this subject

This timely warning comes to you as part of Linda’s One-Liner Wednesdays, which is usually much lighter or inspiring than this. To join us, visit here: https://lindaghill.com/2024/10/23/one-liner-wednesday-no-better-time/

Vote for Democracy #17

Trump and the f-word

(Photo by Lucas Sankey on Unsplash)

Donald Trump’s rhetoric has become even more and more extreme, to the point that some in the media and politics have moved from characterizing it as authoritarian to calling it fascist. Historians, such as Ruth Ben-Ghiat and Heather Cox Richardson, have written columns and done interviews about this, as well as economist, professor, and former Cabinet secretary Robert Reich and many others.

They aren’t wrong.

While Trump has long demonized immigrants, he is now vowing to deport not only undocumented immigrants but also some immigrants who have legal status, such as temporary protected status or pending asylum claims, and even naturalized citizens and children of immigrants born in the United States who are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment of our Constitution. He plans to round up millions of immigrants, place them in detention camps, and send them to other countries. Not only would this devastate these individuals and families, it would also tear apart many communities and devastate certain employment sectors with large numbers of immigrant-workers, such as agriculture, hospitality, construction, and food processing.

Trump is threatening to imprison law-abiding political opponents and members of the independent media, solely on the basis of their opposing viewpoints and truthful reporting. He repeatedly refers to them as “the enemy within.” This is chilling not only for public officials but also for lowly bloggers like me and people with Harris-Walz signs on their lawns. Will Trump-inspired vigillantes come after people like me?

Trump is threatening to use the military inside the United States to squelch protests and arrest people. It is illegal for the US military to operate in this way within the borders of the US, though they can help with things like disaster relief when cleared by state governors. He has even threatened to try civilians before military tribunals rather than in the courts, which is also unconstitutional.

Besides demonizing immigrants, especially people of color, Trump has scapegoated people of certain faiths, such as Muslims and Jews. He has a long history of denigrating Black people, dating from his early days in New York CIty real estate. His mistreatment of women is well-known from his decades of philandering and sexual abuse to his disregard for women’s right to bodily autonomy in the aftermath of the overturning of Roe v. Wade which he made possible. White male superiority is seen as the center of power, which gives those with fascist ideas cover to demean women, people of color, the LGBTQ+ community, religious minorities, immigrants, or anyone they feel does not fit the strongman mold.

Fascism is not democratic. The United States is. It’s time for all eligible voters to stand up for democracy on Election Day, Tuesday, November 5th, or before if early voting or vote-by-mail are available in your state. If you value our democracy, do not vote for Donald Trump or for any Republican who is not publicly opposing his hateful, fascist policies. Do not write in the name of your spouse or next-door neighbor. Do vote for Kamala Harris and the Democrats who value democracy and want to govern for the common good, not just those who voted for them.

Many Republican and former Republican elected officials and staff members have endorsed Vice President Harris because our democractic principles and the rule of law are much more important than particular policy disagreements. They know that, if Trump is elected, he will expand executive power and carry out the violent, fascistic threats he has been making.

Join them and all those who value our freedoms to Vote for Democracy!

One-Liner Wednesday: Trump’s threat to birthright citizenship

Donald Trump has pledged to end birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants by executive order, if he is elected, which would be a clear violation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

This fact is brought to you as my post in Linda’s One-Liner Wednesdays series. Find out how to join us here: https://lindaghill.com/2024/09/25/one-liner-wednesday-flowers/

Vote for Democracy #6

(Photo by Lucas Sankey on Unsplash)

I can’t quite believe that I am compelled to write this but I feel I must after yesterday’s Supreme Court hearing on whether or not blanket presidential immunity exists.

Donald Trump’s lawyer was arguing that a president shouldn’t be able to be prosecuted by the judicial system for criminal acts, including ordering the assassination of a political rival, if it was considered an official presidential act.

He is saying that, literally, a United States president should be able to get away with murder.

That is wrong legally, ethically, and morally.

Every person, citizen or not, elected official or not, is subject to the laws of the United States and whatever state or other jurisdiction they find themselves.

Period.

Do not vote for Donald Trump or any other candidate who believes that any person should be above the law.

Vote for Democracy #4

(Photo by Lucas Sankey on Unsplash)

The United States is not a “Christian nation.”

In the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment makes clear that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It is the first freedom listed in the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights, which was considered so vital that the states required it to be added before they would adopt the Constitution.

While some of the colonies had originally had an established religion, others, such as Rhode Island, had been founded explicitly without a government-sanctioned religion. At the time of the founding, the majority of United States residents were Christian, which is still true today, but the country was explicitly founded to be non-sectarian.

That’s why it’s so disturbing to me to see so many Republicans pushing the concept that the United States either is or should be a “Christian nation,” ignoring both the First Amendment and our history.

A particularly disturbing example of this is that this week, observed by the majority of Christian denominations as Holy Week leading to the celebration of Easter on Sunday, Donald Trump is selling the God Bless the USA bible, which includes the King James version of the Bible along with the US Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Pledge of Allegiance. Trump’s message is “Let’s Make America Pray Again.” He thinks every home should have a (this/his) Bible.

This flies in the face of the First Amendment, which is, one assumes, included in this volume.

As a United States citizen and a Roman Catholic Christian, I am appalled that Trump is raising money in this blatant attempt to appeal to “Christian nationalists,” who want the United States to become a Christian nation, most of whom intend it to be a white Christian nation.

No.

The United States is a pluralistic nation and that is one of its strengths. It has certainly been an imperfect union with egregious examples of discrimination, bigotry, and injustice over the centuries, but we are working to move in a direction closer to equality for all people. Favoring one religion over another in our government must not be allowed.

Our government is a secular one and must remain so, as the Founders and generations of Americans intended.

When we vote, we should keep this principle in mind and reject any candidate who thinks the US is or should be a “Christian nation.”

Immigrants to the US

My great-grandparents on my father’s side came to the United States fleeing hunger and political repression. My grandparents on my mother’s side came to the United States for safety as war threatened. Though some at the time decried them for being Irish or Italian and said they didn’t belong here, they found work and safety, raised families, contributed to their communities, and became citizens. My family has members with ancestral roots in Africa, Asia, the Pacific Islands, other European countries, and Canada. My town has people who came from or are descendants of people from around the world, as well as indigenous people. Some have been here for generations; some arrived recently.

We all belong here.

I am appalled at the recent rhetoric from Donald Trump and others of his ilk that migrants “poison the blood of our country.” I believe every person has inherent dignity. Our blood is a life force we hold in common. If you need a transfusion, it’s only the blood type – O, A, B, AB, Rh – or + – that matters, not the race, ethnicity, gender, wealth, or any other attribute of the donor.

My ancestors made their way here without much in the way of financial resources. Some didn’t speak much English. Despite their pale skin, some were not classified as White by the society at the time. They were fleeing hunger, poverty, political upheaval, danger, and violence, the same kinds of things that are now forcing thousands upon thousands from around the world to flee to the United States. Additionally, some of today’s migrants are fleeing due to climate change, for example, because of crop failures, damage from global-warming-enhanced weather systems, desertification, or sea level rise.

These new migrants have a right under United States and international law to seek asylum and a new life here. Yes, it would be safer for them to apply for asylum or visas in the US from their home countries but US immigration policy and infrastructure is decades out of date, which is certainly not the fault of the migrants. Many people who say, “Yes, but I/my ancestors came here legally,” need to realize that it was their country of origin/timeframe that made that possible in a way that is not available to many of the mostly black and brown folks now trying to cross the US southern border, some of whom originate from continents outside the Americas.

They also need to realize that it has been Congressional Republicans who have blocked meaningful, comprehensive immigration reform. For example, the immigration bill passed by the Senate in 2013 would most likely have passed the House on a bipartisan basis but the Republican House leadership wouldn’t put it up for a vote because the majority of the Republican members would have voted against it. Another example, the first bill that President Biden proposed to Congress was a comprehensive immigration reform bill, but it has not even been brought up for debate.

We have appalling actions by some governors, such as Abbott in Texas and DeSantis in Florida, that demonize and further endanger already vulnerable migrants. (Newsflash: People seeking asylum are not “illegal.” They have legal status under national and international law. And, no, states may not set their own immigration policy.) There are chilling promises of detention camps and mass deportations from some in Trump’s camp, were he ever to regain the presidency.

While comprehensive immigration reform will need to wait for a future Congress, the present Congress could take action to help alleviate the current problems. They could allocate funds for more processing centers and immigration judges to assist new migrants and those who are currently awaiting hearings in the coming months/years. They could give additional aid to communities and programs for resettling immigrants. My county has a long history of welcoming immigrants and there are existing organizations that can help people get re-settled.

Most importantly, they could make provisions to get work visas to newcomers and to immigrants who are already in the United States. Unemployment rates in the United States are low and there are a lot of jobs that aren’t being filled. Some of the sectors that need workers are agriculture, hospitality, caregiving, and construction. Many migrants have those skills and are eager to work to support themselves and their families. It’s a win-win situation.

At the same time, there are many unscrupulous employers who have been hiring workers without documents, often at substandard wages and without proper workplace protections. This needs to stop! The workers should be given work visas and the employers should pay fines and be brought into compliance for wages and working conditions. If they were complicit in human trafficking, they should be held responsible for that, as should anyone else involved.

Another threat from the Trump camp is to end birthright citizenship. Under the United States Constitution, anyone born in the United States is automatically granted citizenship. Period. The only way to change it would be to amend the Constitution, which would take a two-thirds vote from both chambers of Congress followed by ratification of three-quarters of the states. No executive order or even a Congressional law can change birthright citizenship because it would be unconstitutional.

One of the strengths of the United States is that it becomes home to people from all over the world and their descendants. In our communities, we share the food and cultural traditions that traveled with us or our ancestors and are free to do so, enriching all who participate. The United States has always been a diverse country, although it’s taken a long time to grant equal rights and that process is still ongoing. We must not turn our back on new arrivals who want to join us. They have gifts to share with us and we have gifts to share with them.

*****
Join us for Linda’s Just Jot It January! Find out more here: https://lindaghill.com/2024/01/04/daily-prompt-jusjojan-the-4th-2024/

Catholicism and governance in the US

When I wrote this post on the immediate aftermath of the Dobbs decision in the US Supreme Court throwing all abortion rule-making back to the states, I alluded to the way the opinion followed Catholic teaching and my fears for what that would mean.

Of the nine justices on the current Supreme Court, seven were raised Catholic. (Justice Gorsuch was raised Catholic but is now an Episcopalian.) Of the seven, only Justice Sotomayor was nominated by a Democratic president; her views seem to be more mainstream among Catholics in the US.

The five Republican-appointed practicing Catholics (Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Cavanaugh, and Barrett) and Justice Gorsuch are/were all either members of or closely affiliated with members of Opus Dei, a secretive, ultra-conservative group that rose to prominence in the fascist period in Spain. Leonard Leo, a board member of Opus Dei and, for many years, a powerful leader of the Federalist Society, was a supporter/promoter of all six Republican-nominated justices and is also known to have fostered relationships between conservative billionaires and various justices. Beyond the Dobbs ruling, there have been a number of Supreme Court decisions that seem to reflect the Opus Dei viewpoint more than Supreme Court precedent and mainstream Constitutional interpretation.

Sadly, many of the fears I had about the out-sized influence of conservative Catholic opinions about abortion have come to pass, in some states, aided and abetted by conservative, Catholic-raised governors, such as Greg Abbott of Texas and Ron DeSantis of Florida. In states where abortion is illegal or restricted to early weeks, women have hemorrhaged, developed sepsis, lost their ability to carry a child, or even died from lack of timely abortion care. There is currently a lawsuit in Texas by women who were denied abortion care in cases of pregnancy complication or fatal fetal conditions; these stories illustrate what happens when you force the conservative Catholic viewpoint that privileges the life of the unborn over the life of the mother on the public and medical providers. Indeed, in many of the states with restrictive abortion bans, medical providers trained in women’s/maternal health are leaving the state and medical schools and hospitals are having difficulty attracting students and providers to their programs because they can’t offer the full range of services to their patients. This is worsening already critical shortages of providers, especially in rural areas. When statistics become available, we may see a worsening of maternal morbidity/mortality and infant mortality rates, which are already much higher in the US than in most other countries with advanced medical systems.

The states with the most restrictive abortion laws are seeing some other impacts. Young people are sometimes refusing to consider going to school or taking jobs in states that restrict abortion, not only for fear of not being able to get care they need but also in recognition of inequality on the basis of sex. Lack of choice about where service members will be stationed is adding to recruiting problems for the armed services. Currently, Sen. Tuberville of Alabama is holding up all high-level military appointments in the Senate because the military policy is to pay for service members to travel out of state for reproductive care that is not provided in the state where service members and their families are stationed. (Note: Federal money is not used to fund elective abortion. This controversy is about funding travel/leave only.) I don’t think that it occurred to me that the Dobbs decision would impact our military readiness as a nation, but here we are.

We are also seeing proof that the overruling of Roe is not the end of the story. In some states, the legality of birth control is being challenged in the legislature. Many Republicans on the national level are proposing a national ban on abortion, even though the Dobbs decision said that the issue should be decided state by state. Voters in the midterm elections are weighing in on the side of abortion rights as articulated in Roe; it seems they may continue to do so in future elections.

I’m also afraid that this ultra-conservative Catholic viewpoint on the Supreme Court is feeding the larger problem of Christian nationalism. The United States is not a Christian nation; it is a pluralistic nation. The First Amendment of our Constitution tells us that our country shall not have an established religion.

The Federalist Society members are supposed to be originalists. You would think they would know that.

As an American, it is my right to make personal decisions based on my beliefs. The government does not have the right to impose a religious belief on me. It seems to me that this Opus Dei-influenced Supreme Court has crossed that line more than once. Whether a future Court overrules these decisions or Congress passes laws clarifying their intent remains to be seen.

Supreme Court reform?

Back in October 2020, I posted some ideas about possible changes to procedures for the Supreme Court and other federal courts.

There has been much more public debate about this these past few years, particularly since the Supreme Court majority has been tossing precedents and inventing new doctrine on a regular basis of late.

One idea that makes sense to me is to raise the number of Supreme Court justices to thirteen to match the number of federal appellate courts. When the number of justices was changed to nine, there were nine appellate courts, so it makes sense to update the number to match because a Supreme Court justice is assigned for each appellate court. As it is now, some justices are responsible for more than one circuit. Doing this now would also help to redress some of the shenanigans that Mitch McConnell pulled in not allowing consideration of President Obama’s nominee while rushing through one of President Trump’s.

As I wrote in my October 2020 post, I think there should be rules for voting on judicial nominees in a timely manner, committee votes within sixty days and floor votes within ninety. The exception would be a Supreme Court vacancy that occurs after July first in a presidential election year which would be kept open for appointment by the winner of the election.

Because lifetime appointments are not stipulated in the Constitution, there has been a lot of discussion of making the term of Supreme Court justices eighteen years, after which they would serve on an appellate court if they were not ready to retire. I don’t know what that would mean for people who have already served longer than that or that were appointed expecting to serve for a lifetime. There is nothing in the Constitution that says Supreme Court nominations are for life, so no amendment is necessary to effect this change.

There have been a number of issues that have come to the fore more recently. One of them is the urgent need for ethics reform for the Supreme Court. Unlike other levels of the courts, there is no written code of conduct with guidance for recusals, conflicts of interest, etc. In other courts, judges are supposed to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. Given that both Justices Thomas and Alito are known to have accepted lavish gifts from prominent, rich Republicans, it would be helpful to have explicit rules to follow. It also upsets me that two members of the Court have been credibly accused of sexual harassment. There are serious questions about the spouses of two members of the Court earning money from work for/with people who might be seeking to influence the Court. I think there should be ethics reform and ways to enforce violations. As it is now, the Supreme Court justices are accountable to no one, which leaves them outside the usual system of checks and balances. (While it is true that provisions for impeachment and trial through Congress are in place, political forces are so prominent there that votes tend to be on partisan concerns rather than the evidence presented, so the threat of that doesn’t function as a deterrent to judicial misconduct.)

The Republican-appointed justices of the majority have undertaken what seems to be a concerted effort to overturn long-standing precedents. The most obvious is the Heller decision overturning national abortion rights but there are other instances, such as the recent decision against using race as a factor in college admissions which had been upheld numerous times since the 1978 Bakke decision, most recently in 2016. It’s not that precedents should never be overturned, for example, the Dred Scott decision, but those decisions usually advanced people’s rights; this Court seems to be taking away rights that had been previously recognized by the Court and the public. During their confirmation hearings in the Senate, these justices had all proclaimed their intent to respect precedent and “settled law” but they seem to have abandoned this principle.

The Republican-appointed majority are also inventing or embracing new legal constructs, such as the “major questions” doctrine, insisting that Congress must explicitly state the actions that they intend the executive branch department to implement. The Court used this to prevent rules regarding carbon pollution from the power industry. However, the justices overlooked explicit language from Congress giving authority to the Secretary of Education to waive student loans in time of national emergency in the recent case against the Biden administration’s targeted student loan forgiveness program. So, these justices appear to want Congress to be specific about things they don’t favor while ignoring the legislative language when they are specific. That’s not how our legal system is supposed to work.

There have also been major problems with the Court accepting cases without standing. In order to bring a case in federal court, a plaintiff has to show that they were harmed. The most obvious example of this is the 303 Creative case, in which a prospective web designer did not want to design sites for gay marriages but was afraid she would be violating a Colorado law barring discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. She said that a man had approached her to create such a site, giving the man’s name and contact information as part of her case. There are a number of problems, though. She had not started the business and so hadn’t had any legal challenges that caused harm. When a reporter contacted the man that had been named as the prospective gay client, they found out that he had no idea he was named in the suit, had never contacted the web designer for wedding services, is not gay, has been married for fifteen years, and is a web designer himself who wouldn’t need her services. The case should have been thrown out of court but the Republican-appointed justices still ruled in her favor on free speech grounds, saying that she shouldn’t be forced to use her words to support gay marriage, which she opposes on religious grounds. [As a creative who uses words as her medium, I have trouble thinking of a web designer for wedding sites as using “her words” when it’s usually the clients’ words/content/story that goes into a wedding website. It seems more like being a reporter. Whether or not you agree with what is being said, it is your job to report it accurately.]

All of this has led to a lack of public confidence in Supreme Court. Many of their recent decisions are opposed by a majority of citizens. What bothers me more, though, is that the courts are supposed to uphold our rights and freedoms, whether those are popular or not. If a person has the right to make their own medical decisions in conjunction with their health care provider, it should not matter what state the person is in, what their gender is, whether or not they follow a religious practice, or what their skin color is. A parent has a right to object to a book being taught in their child’s school and request an alternate assignment; that parent does not have the right to make that decision for anyone else’s child.

In the United States, every citizen is supposed to enjoy “equal protection of the laws” under the Fourteenth Amendment. It’s an ideal we should be working toward continually but sometimes it seems we are in the Orwellian situation of some being “more equal than others.” We need to get back on track and court reform can help to do that.