Thursday, June 2, 2022
Ginny and the Justice
— François, Duc de La RochefoucauldSelf interest speaks all sort of tongues, and plays all sorts of roles, even that of disinterestedness.
The prospect of a wonderful life as a Justice on the United States Supreme Court was almost derailed by a pubic hair back in 1991. That was when Clarence Thomas was being considered for confirmation to the United States Supreme Court by the United States Senate. Clarence defeated the pubic hair, was confirmed, and has now been on that Court for 30 years.
Clarence’s pleasure at being a member of the Court has been lessened, not because of having to recuse himself from significant cases because of conflicts of interest, a concept that numerous commentators have tried to explain to him, but by the changing complexion of the Court. As he explained in an interview with Robert Barnes of the Washington Post, the Court that he served on when he first joined the Court was, as he described it, “a fabulous court.” He said how great his former colleagues had been, saying of Ruthe Bader Ginsburg with whom he served for almost 30 years that: “You knew where she was and she was a nice person to deal with.” He continued praising Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter, and saying, without doing it, that “I can go on down the list.” He explained that in his first 11 years on the Court it might have been “a dysfunctional family, but we were a family.”
Sadly for Clarence, personnel have changed and as he said in his interview, the present Court is “not the Court of that era.” In response to a questioner, he said that he was worried that it might be difficult to keep respect for ideological differences among the Justices given the people now on the Court. He might have been prescient in making that comment although prescience has not been one of the qualities for which he has been known.
His lack of prescience was clearly on display in his dissent in the 2020 opinion of Rogers v. Grewal in which the Court refused to hear an appeal from a case affirming New Jersey’s right to refuse to permit a person who services automated teller machines in high crime areas to carry a gun to use for self-defense while at work. In explaining his dissent and referring to an issue that was not before the Court but was merely illustrative he said that: “It seems highly unlikely that the Court would allow a State to enforce a law requiring a woman to provide a justifiable need before seeking an abortion.” The recently leaked draft of the opinion that may overrule Roe v. Wade, demonstrates his lack of prescience.
The next sentence in his dissent explains his apparent lack of interest in self recusal because of conflicts of interest caused by his wife. In that sentence he says that: “This Court would almost certainly review the constitutionality of a law requiring citizens to establish a justifiable need before exercising their free speech rights.” And in that sentence he explains his complete lack of concern over the obvious conflict of interest that presents itself when he is asked to consider cases that involve attacks on the 2020 election results in which his wife, Ginni Thomas, has been an active participant and in which she is merely exercising her free speech rights.
Ginni was one of the most conspicuous people attempting to persuade those in positions of power to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Her efforts included emails sent to Arizona lawmakers after the media called the election in that state for Biden. In an e mail to two Arizona lawmakers she told them the election had been marred by fraud. She told them that they were the ones that had the power to fight back against the fraud that she believed resulted in the election of Joe Biden. She exchanged 29 text messages with Mark Meadows, the trump’s White House chief of staff as the trump was trying to overturn the election results.
Some would have thought that Ginni’s active involvement in trying to overturn the election might cause Clarence to consider the possibility that her activities were such that he would have to recuse himself should any cases involving the election in which she had been actively involved come before the Court. They would have been wrong.
One case that has already made it to the Supreme Court pertains to a request by the House Jan. 6 Committee for records from the National Archives related to the storming of the Capitol and the election fight. Those records may very well include e mails from Ginni pertaining to the election fight. The trump tried to block the Committee’s access to those records citing executive privilege. The dispute found its way to the Court which ruled 8-1 that the trump could not block the Committee’s efforts to get those records. The lone dissenter was Ginni’s husband. It’s a safe bet she fixed him a really nice dinner that night. For good reason.
Christopher Brauchli can be e-mailed at brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu. For political commentary see his web page at http://humanraceandothersports.com
Tuesday, May 17, 2022
McCarthy Redux
— AnonymousSame story second verse, a little bit louder, a little bit worse.
We thought the worst McCarthy was behind us. Joe became prominent in the early 1950s when he claimed to have found hundreds of Communists who had infiltrated assorted federal agencies, including the State Department. In 1953 he became chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Instead of investigating fraud and waste in the Federal Government, the task formerly assigned to that committee, Joe led the committee on a hunt for Communists. In the process he destroyed dozens of lives by claiming that those he attacked were members of the Communist party, accusations that in many cases caused his victims to be ostracized, in some cases jailed and, in many cases, to have their careers destroyed.
McCarthy’s Communist hunting career came to an end in 1954 during the Army-McCarthy hearings. During the hearings McCarthy claimed that one of the lawyers working with Joseph Welch, the lawyer retained by the Army to defend it against charges made by McCarthy, had ties to a Communist organization. Mr. Welch responded to McCarthy with the never forgotten response: “Have you no sense of decency?” The hearings essentially brought McCarthy’s career to an end and although not removed from the Senate, he died of alcoholism in 1957.
Kevin McCarthy is the ringmaster for the Republican circus in 2022. It took the Republicans more than 50 years to replace Joe, but they have no reason to be embarrassed by the long delay and their choice of Kevin. He is easily Joe’s match, if not his better.
Following in Joe’s footsteps, Kevin has shown that the absence of integrity is not a bar to achieving prominence in the houses of Congress. In his case it enables him to serve as the leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives rather than the leader in the hunt for Communists. In that capacity he has become the spokesperson for Republicans addressing the events that took place in the nation’s capital on January 6, 2021. In so doing he and his followers are destroying the institution in which they serve.
On January 13, 2021, seven days after the January 6 events, an impeachment resolution was being considered by the House and Senate because of the trump’s responsibility for the events of January 6. According to a report in the Washington Post, Mitch McConnell, then the Majority leader, let it be known that he believed the trump had committed impeachable offenses by his conduct on January 6. Like Mitch, Kevin took a principled stand in commenting on the trump’s January 6 conduct. He said: “The president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. These facts required … President Trump to accept his share of responsibility, quell the brewing unrest and ensure President-elect Biden is able to successfully begin his term.”
According to a report in the New York Times, during a recorded call with colleagues McCarthy said: “I’ve had it with this guy. What he did is unacceptable. Nobody can defend that, and nobody should defend it.” That was then-this is now.
On Tuesday, April 22, 2022 the New York Times reported the content of McCarthy’s taped call among his colleagues. Ever aware that his friendship with the trump was more important than a trivial allegiance to the truth, McCarthy promptly responded to the story by placing a call to the trump and going to Ma-a-Lago to explain his apparent disloyalty to the trump. It worked. On Friday the trump told the Wall Street Journal that his relationship with McCarthy was good. The trump said: “I heard the call. I didn’t like the call. But almost immediately as you know, because he came here, and we took a picture right there-you know the support was very strong.” That was not enough to satisfy all inquirers.
On Monday April 28th, while on a trip to the Mexican border, a trip probably in part to enable McCarthy to inspect fences to protect us from immigrants and a distraction he needed to protect himself from the harmful effects of the New York Times story, he was asked why he denied having asked the trump to resign. Facile, as always, with the truth, McCarthy responded that he never asked the president to resign. The reporter never asked me that question. . . .And that’s what I was answering. . ..If you’re asking now, did I tell my members that we’re gonna ask. . .ask them if I told any of them that I said that to President Trump-the answer is no. I’m glad you asked that question but what’s more important than something that happened 15 months ago on a private conversation with about four other people is what’s happening here right now.” He was probably referring to the fence that was designed to keep illegal immigrants from getting into the country. It coincided nicely with McCarthy’s use of obfuscatory language as a fence to keep the truth from getting out.
Joe McCarthy is probably spinning in his grave-with envy. Kevin’s lack of integrity may well lead him to greater success than Joe enjoyed half a century earlier. Christopher Brauchli can be e-mailed at brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu. For political commentary see his web page at http://humanraceandothersports.com
.
Monday, May 9, 2022
13 Colonies
We are waiting for the long-promised invasion.
So are the fishes.
Winston Churchill, Radio broadcast to the
French people October 21, 1940
If these were normal times there would be no need for those of us who live across the ocean from the country that is now governed by Boris Johnson to be apprehensive. His problems are uniquely his own and in ordinary times would not give us even a moment’s pause. These are not, all would agree, ordinary times.
As far as Boris is concerned his problems are of his own making and may, if not properly addressed, threaten his ability to retain his premiership. And some in the United States are concerned that his attempts may place the United States in peril. It has all come about because of Boris’ fondness for a good time and his willingness to attend a Downing Street Garden party during the pandemic when such gatherings were forbidden. Pictures of the gathering were distributed on the internet at a time when Boris’ subjects were themselves subject to a prohibition against such gatherings.
The result of the episode is that now, many months later, Boris finds himself in a position where he may lose the position that enables him to live at 10 Downing Street and, indeed, members of the opposition hope that the party will lead to Mr. Johnson’s downfall. It is not, however, a given. There are ways he may be able to retain his position.
One possibility is that he will seek a confidence vote before the summer and, if that is successful, will call for a general election in the fall. If he wins that election he will have overcome the result of having succumbed to a love of parties during the pandemic. That, of course, is not the only possible way Boris can take steps to secure his position. The obvious alternative to a confidence vote or a general election that may be available to Mr. Johnson was presented to us (and Mr. Johnson if he hadn’t already thought of it) by one of Kentucky’s two United States senators, Rand Paul.
Before his election to the United States Senate, Rand was an ophthalmologist. His expertise in matters of vision have given him unique insights into many aspects of government including foreign policy. During congressional hearings in 2017, when the Senate was considering a vote on a treaty admitting Montenegro to membership in NATO, Senator Paul blocked an attempt for the Senate to vote on the treaty causing former Senator John McCain to observe that: “The senator from Kentucky is now working for Vladimir Putin.” (Notwithstanding Senator Paul’s efforts, Montenegro was formally admitted to NATO on June 5, 2017.)
Senator Paul’s employment by Putin was once again shown during hearings on Putin’s war in Ukraine. During a Congressional hearing at the end of April Paul explained that one of the reasons Putin had invaded Ukraine was that Ukraine was once part of the Soviet Union. Paul said that although there was no justification for the invasion of Ukraine by Putin “You could also argue that the countries that it has attacked were. . . part of the Soviet Union” and Putin has long wanted a “sphere of influence” over former Soviet states.
Although Putin’s position in Russia is not as imminently threatened as is Boris Johnson’s in England, it is undeniable that in the back of Putin’s mind is an awareness that by successfully invading former members of the Soviet Union he enhances his stature and his ability to retain control of Russia. And that is, of course, why Rand Paul’s observations are cause for alarm for some of us living on this side of the Atlantic.
As most of us know, the United States was once a part of the British Empire. That all came to an end in the period between 1765 and 1791 when those of us who lived in the 13 colonies formed independent states and defeated the British in the Revolutionary War thus gaining independence from the British Crown. Although that defeat of the British is not much discussed today, the concern expressed by some is that, like Putin, Boris Johnson may, in the back of his mind, intend to reclaim the 13 Colonies that Britain lost during the American Revolution. He may hope that in undertaking that task he will prove his ability to govern and retain his position as Prime Minister.
To reclaim what the 13 Colonies comprised in 1776 is of course, a daunting task, but people who are at risk of losing positions of power that they consider valuable are not beyond attempting what most of us would consider a foolish undertaking. This column is not intended to serve as a roadmap should Boris happen to see it. The complexity of fairly dividing up what were the original 13 colonies is itself such a daunting task that it is unlikely Boris would undertake it. Nonetheless, it has given some readers cause for alarm and the purpose of this piece is to give them some assurance that such an invasion is highly unlikely. Rand Paul notwithstanding.