Politics

 I have given some thought to the comments I received on the previous post.  In once sense, I do apologize.  I shouldn't have discussed politics among friends.  

I AM very political personally, but I usually keep that to some discussion boards dedicated to controversial subjects.  And I would be wise to simply drop it now.  

Well, who ever said I was wise?  I do want to reply.  

A commentor replied...

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” McConnell said in a statement released after Scalia’s death. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”.

 

And indeed many Republicans agreed.  Some even said they should be quoted about that in the future if the situation came up again.  It has. and they are reversing their positions for political convenience.

 

I don't care if a politician or individual is Republican or Democratic or Green or whatever in their views.   We all have the right to our political views.

What I abhor is hypocrisy.  If you support "A" today, you should support "A" tomorrow.  Even if it is not convenient or beneficial.  I do, and it is sometimes rather painful.  

For example, Senator Mitt Romney declared that he supports Trump naming a new Supreme Court Justice now just weeks before the election.  Well, he said the same thing when Obama wanted to name a Supreme Court Justice in an election year (though that was 10 months before).  But that was basically consistent and honest.

 

The commentor also expressed  (about the Kavanaugh Hearings) "If you don't think that was atrocious and vicious and senseless I don't know what I can say. I watch the hearings from gavel to gavel and it shames me how some people used politics and smearing lies on such a man with fine character."

 

The hearings focussed on contradictory statements made by Kavanough, not his character or "smearing lies".   

 

Kananugh had written previously that “I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so.”

 

Yet he told the Senator hearings he considered Roe “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court".

 

You can't say both.  That was a hypocrisy.  

 

My personal objections to Donald Trump are many.  In an ordinary year, they would be about political views and programs.  But he has gone beyond  "political views and programs".

 

He has admitted he wants to become President-For Life. He is deliberately damaging voting systems by slowing down the US Mail and directing supporters to eliminate ballots, directing his supporters to vote once by mail and again at voting booths, suggesting armed supporters to intimidate voters, suggesting that he will not accept election results, and wants the courts and the Senate to overturn oting results.

 

The newest idea is that if he can delay voting results long enough, College Of Electors will be tossed out and State Legislatures will decide.   Most of which are Republican-controlled.  But that might cause even conservative Supreme Court Justices to gag.

 

That's why he wants a new Supreme Court Judge in place BEFORE Election Day. One more might go in his favor...

 

OK, I've said enough.  But I felt a response was owed... 

Can't Stay Away

I thought I would probably just stay offline for a week and see what developed after US Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg died, but there is little value in doing that. The Republican party has made it clear that they will appoint a very conservative justice to replace a liberal one.  I just didnt expect them to act so fast.

There are couple things going on here and I just can't stay silent.  The first is that Justice Ginsberg was an unusually thoughtful and careful thinker.  I always personally thought she was special.  While I don't try to read detailed legal decisions, I always found summaries of her questions and arguments to be clearer and more focused than most other Supreme Court Justices (some of whose were downright bizarre and represented political goals more than they did law).

The second is that her replacement will likely be extremely conservative and likely to tilt the Court to a degree of reactionary conservatism.  I am scared, angry, and worried about a generation of reversals of basic civil right decisions.

For the benefit of those who do not pay as much attention to The Supreme Court as they do the Presidency or Congress (as so many do not in the US and do not really need to elsewhere), here is a brief summary of the politicalization of the US Supreme Court...

In our history, there have been times when the Supreme Court nominees were very political chosen.  But after WWII until a few decades ago, nominees were generally moderates chosen for legal expertise and a sense of some political neutrality.  That was mostly because both the Democratic and Republican parties had liberal and conservative members and no extremely ideological judge could get through the Senate for approval.

As the political parties began to chose a side in "self-purging",  Supreme Court candidates became more representative of party politics.  One could blame Richard Nixon for bringing Southern Democratic conservatives and Republican conservatives together to form a new majority Republican party under the idea of "law and order" (a code word for racism and white supremacy).  Economic and liberal Republicans moved to the Democratic party which promised "a big tent".  I was one of them.

Over the next couple of decades, both parties spread apart ideologically.  The Republicans realized that taking over The Supreme Court had advantages for a decade or more (the Democrats, to my constant amazement, never seemed to catch on to that).   Republicans went for advantage; Democrats stayed respectful of the Preident's right to select Judges at all levels

In this century, timing of Supreme Court retirements and deaths has given the Republicans the opportunity to name more Supreme Court judges than the Democrats.  But it isn't JUST that.  There is a major difference between Republicans and Democrats.  

Republican politicians come from businessmen and lawyers used to fighting to win by any means.  Democrats tend to come from community activists used to succeeding by creating consensus among groups.  Republicans enjoy high-stakes poker; Democrats let their kids win at Candyland*.  Let's say both play chess.  Republicans will try a a Fool's Mate playing their Mother; Democrats will try to let their friends get a draw.  Republicans are Dad who sends you to your room for not finishing dinner; Democrats are Mom who sneaks you dessert later. 

That may be changing as Democrats see the lack of benefit by seeking consensus and getting kicked in the face for trying.   

But here's my point...  

In February 2016,  conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia died.  It was the right of President Obama to name and expect to have approved a replacement.  He nominated Merrick Brian Garland (who serves as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He has served on that court since 1997 with good reputation).  

Republican US Senate Leader Mich McConnell declared it was improper for a President to name a Supreme Court Judge in an election year  (this was 10 months before the election).  Most all other Republicans agreed and some even swore on camera that they would never change their minds on this issue as a "matter of principle".  Because the nominee should be chosen by the next President.

Now it is 2020, only 48 days before the next election.  President Trump is demanding to name Ginsberg's replacement and those Republican Senators who swore never to allow a Court approval at any point in an election year are saying they will approve anyone Trump names within days.

My Dad hated "lying"; I hate "hypocrisy".  They are close but different.

In a way, it doesn't matter what the views of Trump's nominee are.  It is the hypocrisy of the Republican Senators who changed their views just as a matter of winning.  I am disgusted by the amorality and
hypocrisy of the Republican party in this matter.

    -----------------

* When I was growing up, my family played board games a lot.  Dad was lethal.  Mom probably was kinder.  But Dad never explained how he won.  He just LOVED winnng at anything.  And when I got better at any game than him, he stopped playing it.  Granted, I learned a lot from losing and DID figure out his secrets slowly.

Move ahead to 1980.  My parents (who said we should always stay close together as a family) suddenly went and moved from MD to NH taking my minor sister with them.  So I visited them each Summer.  Sis liked to play board games too.  Her favorite was Careers.  I was lethal, like Dad.  And that probablt distressed her at first because I was her "adored Big Brother".  

But I kept showing her what I had done to win (and there were many ways), and she caught on o the idea that I was teaching her how to play games.  I explained there was a way of looking at how a game worked and taking advantage of that.  In Careers you could win by meeting goals you set in your mind at the start.  Any version of $, happiness, or fame that got you to 60.  But you just had to focus on it.  She mentioned that to me years later saying I had helped her look at some parts of life more analytically and clearly.

The point was Dad killed, Mom was kind, and I explained.   Dad was  Republican, Mom was a Democrats, and I was somewhere between...