Tag: courts

fears for US immigrants

Vote for Democracy #43

(Photo by Lucas Sankey on Unsplash)

There are so many horrors happening every day in the United States under the Trump regime that it’s difficult to write posts because I feel like I’m not able to do justice to the topic when there are so many illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, and/or unconscionable actions and statements perpetrated in an ongoing basis.

Today, though, I decided to lift up the threats to immigrants and refugees beginning with a local story. Roger Wang, the owner of a local Chinese restaurant who fled political persecution in China, was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as he arrived for his green card hearing. For those who may not be familiar, a green card is a document that means an immigrant can live and work permanently in the US. Roger had been in the legal process for twelve years and had fulfilled all the requirements that ICE set out to earn his green card, but he was arrested anyway. There is a fundraiser for legal costs and to try to offset the losses to his business. As I write this, I haven’t heard any updates about where Roger is and when or whether he might be able to be released.

Stories like Roger’s are being repeated around the country. Immigrants are being detained by ICE, even when they do have legal status. The Trump administration has shamefully rescinded the legal status of many refugees, including those who served alongside the US in Afghanistan, and who face danger if they return to their home countries. Government agents, sometimes without identifying insignia and with their faces covered, have snatched people from their workplaces, cars, or even the streets and detained them. Sometimes, people with citizenship are detained, too. Appallingly, agents have injured people they are taking into custody They also have taken parents away, leaving their young children behind; sometimes, they take the children into custody, too, and have deported them with their parent, even if the children are United States citizens. Trump tried to take away birthright citizenship from children if both of their parents are undocumented, but this order is on hold while the courts hear arguments about it, although the 14th Amendment, Section 1 is very clear that being born in the United States confers citizenship.

It’s become more difficult to travel into the United States, even for people who are citizens or have permanent status. This month, Wilmer Chavarria, the school superintendent in Winooski, Vermont and a naturalized citizen originally from Central America, was questioned for five hours at the Houston airport as he returned from visiting family in Nicaragua. This risk causes a chilling effect on international travel for both US citizens and for tourists from other countries, especially those who aren’t White, as people of color are disproportionately subjected to being hassled by government border agents. Some countries are warning against travel to the US and tourism is down significantly. This is especially true for Canadians, due to Trump’s threats to their sovereignty and damage to their economy. This is particularly sad because Canada has been such a good neighbor for so long; my spouse B has Canadian ancestry with one of his great-grandfathers immigrating to the US in the late-19th century.

The majority of Americans are upset about the cruelty and disregard for US and international law that the Trump administration is exhibiting. They have sent people to detention camps and dangerous foreign countries and prisons without hearings or formal charges. They have disrespected judges and skirted/defied court orders when cases are brought. Many people, including lawyers, local/state government officials, faith leaders, charitable organizations, schools, and local community members are doing all they can to speak up for the rights of our immigrant neighbors, but it’s difficult when unidentified federal officials snatch people without notice and take them to undisclosed locations, sometimes even deporting them to their country of origin or an unrelated country before their families or lawyers can speak to them.

It’s part of the authoritarian nightmare we are living.

We will keep speaking out and doing what we can, despite the grim reality.

I don’t know how long it will take but we have to get our democracy back on track and always, always, always respect human rights.

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.

SoCS: United States?

I live in the United States of America.

It doesn’t feel that way.

There is a huge amount of disunity both between states and within states and it’s very upsetting and disorienting.

As with any democratic country, there will always be differences of opinion of how to govern and how to prioritize our obligations to each other and to other countries but we have fallen into a situation where we can’t even agree on facts.

I’ve written before about the issue of abortion, which now has each state making their own laws about it, but some states are trying to forbid going to another state to receive care, which is not something that should even be considered in the United States. We are supposed to be able to travel freely between states and to engage in commerce there.

As it happens, I’ve lived most of my life on a state border, growing up on the Massachusetts side of the border with Vermont and living for the last several decades on the New York side of the border with Pennsylvania. The concept that there would be any restrictions on crossing the border or engaging in a legal activity there is just bizarre and un-American.

While this disunity began before the Trump presidency, he has thrown the problem into overdrive. As non-US folks may be aware, Trump’s home in Florida was searched under warrant by the Federal Bureau of Investigation earlier this week. Yesterday, the warrant and receipt of what was removed by the agents was released by the court. The former president had kept documents that, under the Presidential Records Act, he should not have in his possession. (All presidential records belong to the people of the United States and are administered by the National Archives.)

This is part of an investigation at this point; there have been no charges that we know of. I suppose there could be charges that have been made but that are under seal but that seems unlikely at this point. At any rate, it seems clear that the former president had in his possession documents that he has no right to possess and that he did not turn them over when he was asked about them. When the archivists realized some documents were missing, they asked for them. Over the winter, fifteen boxes of material were sent back to Washington. When they analyzed them, the Archives realized there were still materials missing. There was a subpoena for them issued in June but they still were not returned, which led to the warrant and search this week. More materials were found and removed by the FBI agents, including some materials that are considered so sensitive that they are only supposed to be read in special rooms that are very secure with guards and prohibitions against having any electronic devices near them.

I’m not a lawyer, but the known evidence at this point looks bad for the former president.

The problem is that, in this time of disunity, even facts seem to be in dispute. Trump and his apologists are running through all kinds of excuses and obfuscations. There were claims that none of the president’s – well, ex-president’s – staff were there but his lawyers were present during the search. There were accusations that the FBI agents planted evidence, although, not only were Trump’s lawyers there but also DT and Melania watched the search unfold over the extensive surveillance system of Mar-a-Lago, the Trump golf resort which has become their primary residence. Trump was in New York at the time of the search to give a deposition in a civil case about his business practices pre-presidency; in hours of questioning, the only question he answered was his name, invoking his right against self-incrimination hundreds of times. (It’s true that that is his and every person’s right under the Constitution, but this is a civil, not criminal case, so jurors will be able to draw inferences from the refusal to answer in ways that are not possible in criminal cases where taking the Fifth is not able to be used against you in any way. Yeah, stream of consciousness can lead you off your path into what should probably be a separate post…)

So, yeah, back to other excuses. Some are saying that everything is okay because DT declassified everything he took, trying to obscure the fact that he should not have had any of these materials AT ALL because all presidential records belong to the people of the United States through the National Archives. Also, there is an extensive process by which a president can declassify materials which was not followed, as there were materials that still have stamps for classification at various levels, which would have to have been removed with documentation if they were truly declassified.

Unfortunately, there has already been a life lost due to the lies about the search. A man, responding to false reports that the FBI had done something illegal, attacked an FBI office, fled, had a standoff with agents, and was killed when he raised his weapon against them.

I’m very afraid of violence becoming more widespread. Unlike our Civil War which was between the Union and a group of states which broke away, this violence would likely take place within communities. There are homes that are flying the United States flag upside-down, which is a signal of distress, and displaying Trump banners and Second Amendment flags with guns on them and flags with vulgar messages toward President Biden. There are lots of people with multiple firearms and lots of ammunition. There are various s0-called militias that are anti-government and/or white supremacist, anti-Semitic, Christian nationalist, etc. And, of course, because of the January 6th insurrection, we know that they are capable of organizing and attacking at Trump’s behest.

It’s terrifying and bewildering and disorienting. I never thought I would have to fear that the United States might fall apart, or worse, fall into authoritarianism. I never thought one entire political party would so flagrantly violate their oath of office and still manage to get elected through riling up fears and manipulating the election system. I never thought the courts would take away rights that had been recognized.

It’s discouraging that, with facts as clear as they have been from the Select Committee taking testimony about January 6th and from the search warrant and results from this week, that so many, especially Republican members of Congress, are continuing to lie and lead people astray.

I try to do my little part to keep facts out there, even in stream of consciousness, but sometimes the disunity seems insurmountable. Millions of us will keep trying, though, to make our country the United States again.

I hope we can.
*****
Linda’s prompt this week was to build our post around something that begins with the letter U. Join us! (You can stream of consciousness write about something much more fun than this post, I promise!) Find out more here: https://lindaghill.com/2022/08/12/the-friday-reminder-and-prompt-for-socs-aug-13-2022/.

(A reminder: Comments are open. I will respond to respectful comments but will delete anything that is vulgar or abusive.)

My US Supreme Court plan

In a comment to this post on my refraining from watching the Amy Coney Barrett hearings, I promised my thoughts on the future of the United States Supreme Court, so here is my attempt to weigh in on a very fraught civics topic. Please note: This is my personal opinion as a citizen. I am not a lawyer or someone with a degree in public policy. This is my brainstorming on the basis of common sense, fairness, and trying to codify what had previously been expected to accord with good governance and ethics.

In the design of the Constitution, the judicial branch is co-equal with the legislative branch (Congress) and the executive branch (president and executive agencies). Its function is to interpret the Constitution and laws. In recent years, the courts have been politicized. The impartiality of their judgements is called into question by the machinations of the politics around their appointment by the president and confirmations by the Senate.

The process as written in the Constitution is that the president nominates individuals for open seats on the various federal courts with the Senate’s advice and consent. Since Mitch McConnell has been Republican majority leader of the Senate, he has failed in his Constitutional duty to give Senate hearings and votes to nominees made by Democratic president Barack Obama, most (in)famously in the case of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland but of dozens of nominees to lower federal courts, as well. During the Trump presidency, McConnell has busily filled those seats with Trump’s very conservative nominees, even when those people have been rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Association.

This is an unfair practice but not technically illegal because there are not specific statutes on how the Senate gives advice and consent. My plan begins with codifying what had previously been expected, timely consideration of a president’s court nominees. I propose that all nominees to the federal bench have their Senate hearings begun within sixty days of their nomination and a confirmation vote by the full Senate for those who are advanced by the Judiciary Committee taken within ninety days. The exception would be for a vacancy to the Supreme Court in a presidential election year. A vacancy that occurs on July first or later would be held open for the winner of the presidential election that November.

My sense of fairness also calls for some remedy to the McConnell machinations that have skewed the federal courts to having more Republican appointees than there should have been. If Biden is elected, I think he should be able to make two immediate nominations to the Supreme Court, one for the seat that should have been considered for Merrick Garland because Antonin Scalia’s death was prior to July first in 2016 and one for the seat that will presumably be filled by Trump after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in September. This basically applies the principle that would be codified in the new law. I envision these two seats as temporary. Going forward, Supreme Court openings would be filled by Democratic (or independent) presidents as usual; Republican (or another conservative party that might arise out of the current maelstrom) presidents would forfeit the next two openings that occur during their presidencies, gradually reducing the Supreme Court back to nine justices.

A similar remedy might be able to be applied to the other federal courts, looking at seats that McConnell blocked from being filled by President Obama as a basis.

This is not a perfect solution, as it will not restore the balance and integrity that the courts would have had without these abuses of power, but it would at least give a legal structure to prevent a repeat in the future and some measure of accountability to the parties that acted unfairly.

Another court reform that is being discussed is to put a term length on what are now lifetime appointments. I have mixed feelings about this. I like the concept of lifetime appointments because it removes any thoughts of a justice deciding in a certain way in order to influence their re-appointment for an additional term. On the other hand, it bothers me that there are justices who were rated as “not qualified” or who have been credibly accused of sexual harassment or lying under oath who will serve for a lifetime on the federal bench. If a term of service is imposed, it should be long, on the order of eighteen or twenty years. I would leave the option available for the president to re-nominate a justice for Senate confirmation. As much as I might like to apply a time limit retroactively, I don’t think this is a good idea. For better in some cases and worse in others, those approved as lifetime appointments should be able to remain in those positions.

For the record, there has been much talk about the Democrats, if they control Congress and the presidency, “packing the Court” meaning adding seats permanently to the Supreme Court. This term is meant pejoratively. I think the Democrats will definitely pursue court reform which is needed to prevent what Aaron Blake of the Washington Post has termed “court-stacking” – the Republican gamesmanship that has resulted in the current skewing of the courts toward justices nominated by Republican presidents.

The idea of temporarily adding seats and exacting a penalty against future Republican/conservative presidents is something that I dreamed up on my own, not something that I have seen proposed elsewhere, proving once again that you can never tell what might be top of JC’s Mind.

By the way, in tangentially related Senate procedure, I propose that the filibuster return to its traditional role as a tool to convince other senators to support one’s position. If a senator wishes to filibuster a nomination or piece of legislation, they may take the floor to talk about the issue as long as they wish. When they finish, debate ends and the measure is brought to the floor for a vote. In a body that already gives outsized influence to states with small populations, forty-one of one hundred senators should not have the ability to permanently block what the majority of senators wants to enact.

Failing the Constitution

I woke up this morning thinking about the United States Constitution, specifically about the Preamble, which I can recite from memory. (Thanks, Schoolhouse Rock.)

The Preamble sets out the goals of our democratic republic. It famously begins, We the People of the United States. This means everyone is part of this enterprise, regardless of age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or political views. It was part of the wisdom of the Founders to frame this document in such an expansive way, even though, at the time, only free men, who were overwhelmingly white, could vote. Much of the history of the United States has been about expanding our understanding of who “we the people” are, a process that continues to this day.

in Order to form a more perfect Union – We the People are, at this moment, moving away from a more perfect Union. I take this Constitutional call seriously and am sad and frightened about the current state of affairs, which is causing so many divides in our country. There are millions of people who are embroiled in an “us versus them” mentality over religion, political party, race. gender, ethnicity, and/or viewpoint on a particular issue. There are millions of people who can’t have a civil discussion of an issue without petty name-calling and dismissiveness of the other’s viewpoint. That moves us away from “a more perfect Union”.

establish Justice – Our Constitution creates an entire co-equal branch dedicated to this goal. Sadly, the independence of the judiciary is under threat, most obviously this week by the executive branch interfering in the sentencing of a friend of the president’s who was tried and found guilty by a jury on all seven counts with which he was charged. The Attorney General, who is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, is supposed to be the chief law officer for We the People; as such, most attornies-general have observed independence from the executive branch. AG Barr is not doing that. Chillingly, he has also ordered that no investigation into political campaigns can occur without him personally giving permission. This mean that the Federal Bureau of Investigation cannot follow leads, collect evidence, question witnesses, or take any action unless Barr authorizes it. He could order investigations of Democratic candidates while blocking those of Republican candidates. Given that twelve Russian operatives are under indictment for election interference to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, this raises the specter of similar efforts by Russians or other foreign actors not being investigated at all, as long as they benefit the current administration and other Republican candidates.

Meanwhile, the Senate has been interfering with the judicial branch, too. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would not bring President Obama’s federal court nominees to the Senate for confirmation. Not only did Merrick Garland not get a vote to join the Supreme Court but also dozens of nominees to lower courts were denied votes. McConnell has spent a lot of the Senate’s time pushing through the current administration’s judicial nominees, even those rated as “not qualified” by the American Bar Association. Traditionally in the Senate, sixty of one hundred votes would have been needed to bring these to the floor, but that rule has been suspended, so even the not-qualified candidates receive lifetime appointments to the courts with only fifty votes.

insure domestic Tranquility – Our domestic life is anything but tranquil. The incivility noted in the “more perfect Union” section too often devolves into verbal abuse and threats to personal safety. There have been threats of violence, even death, to journalists, public officeholders, diplomats, members of the military, and people who either question the administration or come forward to give truthful testimony.  Even ordinary folks can be threatened over simple things like video games or expressing their opinion about books or topics of public interest.

Too many people are hurt or killed by violent acts, especially those involving firearms. Mass shootings and police shootings get the most media coverage, but every day people are shot by someone they know or are victims of accidental shootings. The majority of gun deaths in the United States are suicides. These are not marks of domestic tranquility.

Millions of people don’t have access to sufficient food, safe shelter, medical care, and other necessities of a dignified life. Most of them are employed, but not earning a living wage. Millions of people are suffering from addictions. Millions of people are exploited because of their gender, immigration status, age, or other factors that make them fearful to seek help. Millions of people face discrimination because of their race, gender, age, ethnicity, or beliefs. None of these things are tranquil for those suffering through them or for those who sympathize with them.

provide for the common defence – The United States military is the most powerful institution in the world. It should be used to defend the United States and our allies from aggression. Often, the presence of US military is enough to deter countries from attacking their neighbors. I am appalled by the way this administration has pulled back support for our allies, such as South Korea, Ukraine, NATO, and the Kurds. These actions make both the US and our allies less defended and less safe. The treatment of the Kurds is especially troubling. The Kurds did the bulk of the work in taking back land controlled by ISIS; the US withdrawal that the president declared after talking with the autocratic leader of Turkey left the Kurds with no protection from the Turks and the Russians who have taken over the Kurdish towns and driven the residents into exile. Meanwhile, ISIS, continues as a terrorist organization, which is a continuing threat to the US and our allies.

promote the general welfare – This is the phrase from the Preamble that I quote most often. The Constitution is calling us to care for one another. This is also sometimes called in our modern American English working for the common good. This is one of the purposes of our government, but too often government acts in the interests of those individuals, families, businesses, and organizations that are wealthy. This tiny fraction receives a lot of benefits that ordinary folks don’t. Case in point: the tax reform that gave permanent tax cuts to businesses and large tax cuts to the wealthy, while giving some short-term tax relief to some non-wealthy people and higher taxes to others.

Too often our elected officials ignore promoting the general welfare, instead focusing on their campaign donors, businesses in their district or state, and wealthy folks rather than what is good for the general population, both in their district/state and throughout the country. Votes are cast not in the interest of the whole populace but with an eye to what the voters in their party’s primary wants.  Even worse, some officeholders feel that they only represent people of their party or those that voted for them. That is not the framework laid out by the Constitution. We the People expect our government officials to cooperate in passing, executing, and adjudicating laws that promote the general welfare and protect our rights, not to block a proposal because it originated in the other party or was passed by the other house of Congress. Examples of this are the hundreds of (mostly bipartisan) House-passed bills this session that Leader McConnell has blocked in the Senate and the comprehensive immigration reform passed by a bipartisan majority in the Senate in 2013 but not brought up for a vote in the House because it would have passed without a majority of the Republican members voting in favor.

and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity – While I feel fortunate to have these blessings, so many others do not. They face discrimination, poverty, abuse, hunger and other problems every day. I mourn the country and world we are leaving to the younger generations and those to come. We are leaving them with division and peril, with our world damaged so much that some of the ecological systems will not be able to recover fully even over centuries. Recognizing this, many young people have taken action to demand change. The Sunrise movement works on issues of climate change and environmental degradation. After a mass shooting at their school, the students of Parkland High mobilized young people across the country to demand protection from gun violence. It is incumbent on all of us to support our younger generations, already part of We the People, and future generations who one day will be.

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. – We the People established our government. It belongs to all of us, not just to a few of us. We need to hold government accountable for the purposes for which we established it. We need Congress to take responsibility for passing laws that are fair to everyone. We need them to exercise their Constitutional duty to declare war when necessary, rather than ceding that power to the commander-in-chief or military leaders. We need everyone to realize that Article II does not give presidents the power to do whatever they want. They are subject to Congressional oversight and judicial proceedings. The courts have to realize that they exist to interpret the Constitution and laws, not write them.

It is troubling that a large percentage of people in this country today tell pollsters that they believe Congress and the courts should get out of the president’s way so that he can do what he wants quickly. This is incredibly dangerous to our democratic republic. We the People must be informed on what the Constitution dictates and hold officeholders and other public servants to it. Those who commit serious breaches of the Constitution should resign. If they don’t, they should be removed by legal means or, at the very least, not re-elected or re-appointed.

I have not been silent on these issues but, given the troubling events of the last few weeks, I felt the need to write this lengthy post to be among those sounding the alarm that our country is in danger. Like me, most of us do not have a large megaphone to broadcast our voices far and wide, but if enough of us speak up in defense of our Constitution, our government will hear the voices of We the People.

Review: Just Mercy

Knowing that a film is portraying real people and the situations they face immediately increases its impact for me. Just Mercy is based on a book by lawyer and social justice activist Bryan Stevenson, who, after graduating from Harvard Law School moved to Alabama to offer legal defense to those who could not afford representation and to those wrongly convicted.

One of his early cases involved Walter “Johnny D” McMillian, movingly portrayed by Jamie Foxx, who was on death row for a murder that he did not commit. Having just arrived in Alabama, Bryan Stevenson, played earnestly by Michael B. Jordan, delves into the case and finds ample evidence that shows Johnny D could not have murdered the 18-year-old young woman. It also quickly becomes apparent that race was a huge factor in McMillian’s conviction. The victim was white and McMillian is black.

It also quickly becomes apparent that Attorney Stevenson, who is also black, will encounter racial obstacles in his professional life and harassment by law enforcement officers and the legal establishment, but he continues to do all he can to seek justice for his clients, their families, and their community.

I have long been opposed to the death penalty. I remember writing an essay against it when I was still in grammar school. While my opposition centered around the moral belief that killing a person is wrong and the Constitutional grounds that the death penalty constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment,” this film illustrates some of the other reasons to oppose the death penalty, such as systemic racism in the legal system, incompetent defense attorneys, and lack of recognition and treatment of mental illness.  There is also the horrible possibility of executing an innocent person.

One of the most moving things about the film for me was the support that the men on death row gave one another. Even though they couldn’t often see each other because the walls between them were solid, they would shout to each other to exchange information and offer words of comfort. They would use the bars at the front of the cell and a metal cup to let another man know they are thinking about him.

The film is rated PG-13 and would be too emotionally difficult for children. There are sequences that I found emotionally difficult, especially the one execution that is shown. While the execution itself is not shown on screen, the lead-up to it is heartbreaking.

I always stay to watch the credits of films. Even if you usually do not, you will want to stay through the first part of the credits which gives updates on the people that we meet during the film. It is a final reminder that we are dealing with the lives of real people, what happened to them, and the implications of those events that continue into our present and future as a country.

A note from Joanne:  This is the fifth(!) film I have seen this month. I have never been to a theater so many times in a two week-period. Those of you who are new to Top of JC’s Mind should know that this is not usually a movie review blog. You just happened to catch me at a time when movies are swirling in my mind.
*****
Join us for Linda’s Just Jot It January! Find out more here:  https://lindaghill.com/2020/01/14/daily-prompt-jusjojan-the-14th-2020/

a lament

While I have been concentrating on family issues these last few months – and watching less news on television as the now-two-year-old ABC is more often alert in the evenings – there is always the undercurrent of disturbing news around me.

One of the worst of these issues is the inhumane treatment of asylum seekers, refugees, and immigrants by the Trump administration. Under U.S. and international law, people have the right to cross the border to ask for asylum. The administration has set up barriers to this, including restrictions at ports of entry, that have resulted in desperate attempts to cross rivers and/or deserts that have caused deaths.

Those who do manage to cross the border have been detained for long periods in overcrowded facilities without access to proper food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, communication, and legal aid. The most scandalous part of this has been the continuing separation of children from adult family members, resulting in thousands of so-called “unaccompanied minors”, some who are still infants and toddlers, who are only unaccompanied because they have been taken away from family members who brought them to the US and aren’t able to contact them or other adult family members already in the country. As if that weren’t bad enough, these children are being kept for extended periods of time in horrible conditions without proper care. This is in flagrant disregard of court orders, international law, and human decency.

These sorts of things are not supposed to happen under the rule of law and, if they do, the attorney general, as head of the justice department, should take legal action to ensure that these abuses stop and never happen again. However, this is not happening. Some judges have issued court orders, but they can’t make the Department of Homeland Security carry them out. Meanwhile, the president is holding rallies touting his tough stance at our southern border.

It’s all sickening.

I don’t know how this will end. I am hoping for the sake of the people being held that something will work to free them and care for them, now rather than later. My fear is that this disregard for our laws and for basic human rights will persist until there is a new president and cabinet. That will take much too long, though, with more suffering, deaths, and trauma inflicted on thousands and thousands of people in the meantime. It’s possible that the US could be sanctioned by the United Nations or an international court, but I doubt that would have any greater effect than the court orders of US judges.

There is no good way to end this post, other than to thank all the lawyers, social service agencies, faith communities, and local governments who are doing all they can to care for those being detained, for those who are released with no means to care for themselves or to travel, for those who are sick or hungry or thirsty, and for those who are frightened and confused and separated from their families while surrounded by people who do not speak their language. May their example of love, compassion, and human decency move those who are in power to change their ways.

Update:  I wrote this yesterday evening and woke up to see this post being shared on Facebook. It is very disturbing information about one of the for-profit companies running detention centers using US tax dollars; it lists sources.

more unsettled

Last week, I wrote about how unsettled I was, for both personal and societal reasons.

It’s worse now, particularly on the political front.

With the Manafort verdict and the Cohen guilty pleas and the immunity deals for Pecker and  Weisselberg, the possible legal jeopardy for the Trump family and businesses has increased. The president has tweeted multiple threats against the Justice Department and especially against Attorney General Jeff Sessions. There has been public discussion about the possible issuing of presidential pardons, but those only apply to federal charges and it is likely that the state of New York will bring more tax and financial charges against the Trump Foundation, businesses, and family members. Meanwhile, the Mueller investigation on Russian election and political interference continues and no one knows when the next indictment or plea deal will be announced.

It makes my head spin.

Although I was a preteen at the time, I remember this same unsettled feeling during the final stage of the Watergate scandal before Nixon resigned. Despite the public revelation of evidence of corruption and coverup, many of Nixon’s supporters among the electorate were adamantly against his impeachment or resignation; it took the intercession of Republican Congressional leaders to convince Nixon to resign rather than put the country through impeachment of the president and subsequent Senate trial.

I have no idea how our current predicament will resolve. I pray that it will be just and peaceful and lead to healing and reconciliation in the country, but I fear that it will not.

Senator John McCain died yesterday, leaving a long and distinguished record of public service, as a Navy officer, including five and a half years as a prisoner of war, a member of the House of Representatives, a Senator for over thirty years, and a presidential nominee. Tributes to him, his courage, and his service are pouring in from across the country from people across the political spectrum. It saddens me that part of the obituaries and coverage is dedicated to Donald Trump’s personal animus against and disparagement of Senator McCain.  Given that history, DT’s current condolences ring hollow.

May John rest in peace and may his legacy live on in his family, friends, and colleagues.

indictment of Russian military officers

I am appalled at DT siding with Putin against the very real evidence of crimes against the American people around the 2016 election by members of the Russian military.

The indictment is detailed and, of course, the grand jury, ordinary United States citizens doing their civic duty, saw the evidence behind the counts listed.

Russia will not extradite the officers to stand trial, so the trial will need to be held in absentia.

All members of Congress should speak up and support the Justice Department and courts as this process moves forward. They should also pass legislation to secure the 2018 and future elections.

They must also denounce the president for taking the side of Putin and Russia against the United States. I can barely believe the depths to which DT has sunk, as he denigrates our long-time allies while praising authoritarian leaders.

The Congressional oath of office begins, “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” I call on all members of Congress to fulfill their oath and protect our democracy.

parents and children

Daughter E and granddaughter ABC have been back with us for a month. ABC is currently snoozing in her grandpa’s arms. While we are sad that her daddy is so far away right now, we know it is necessary so that E can get a spousal visa to join him next year when the three of them will be together full-time at last.

ABC just reached thirteen months of age and is going through one of those time periods when she is especially attached to her mommy and very suspicious of strangers. Observing that and knowing how important it is for her to be surrounded by love and stability makes the ongoing crisis of the current US border policy all the more appalling. It is unconscionable that the current administration has taken children away from their parents or guardians and then lost track of them.

While the courts have ordered that families be reunited soon, the government has asked for more time. Meanwhile, the damage to these children’s health continues, as well as the heartbreak of their parents and of millions of Americans who cannot belief that such cruelty has been done in our name.

Many people have come forward to assist the children and their family members, giving money, legal services, transportation, housing, and other assistance to reunite the children with their loved ones as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, we cannot undo the trauma these families have experienced.