A justice for the future.

April 8, 2022

[Audio version here.]

          Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed as the first Black woman to sit on the United States Supreme Court. It is an occasion for joy and celebration, full stop. She joins two other liberal justices who will stand in opposition to a reactionary majority that is attempting to drag the Court—and America—back to the darkest days of the last century. She will follow in the footsteps of justices who shaped our nation’s history by writing dissents for generations to come. Ketanji Brown Jackson will be a justice for the future, laying a foundation for the Second Civil Rights Movement that will rise from the ashes of the Gorsuch-Kavanaugh-Barrett Court.

          But Justice Jackson will not struggle in vain. The force of her intellect, the integrity of her character, and her “real-life” experiences as a public defender will surely have some effect on the reactionary majority. As Dan Rather and Elliot Kirschner wrote in their moving essay in Steady,

Now, going forward, Justice Jackson will bring a new voice to those marbled halls, one who can bear witness to what this nation is, and where it is going.

Her presence itself will not fix the myriad problems we face; our challenges defy easy answers or simple remedies. But Justice Jackson personifies the hope that change is possible, that progress can be our path going forward.

          But Justice Jackson’s confirmation represents a paradox, as described by Ian Millhiser in Vox:

Jackson’s mere presence on the Court is a tribute to more than 400 years of struggle to ensure that all Americans will enjoy the blessings of political equality, regardless of race or gender. But she joins it at the very moment that the Court is taking the wrong side in this struggle. . . . The Supreme Court is more diverse than it has ever been, and more hostile to political equality than any Court since the 1950s.

          Justice Jackson represents the future. In waiting for Justice Jackson to leave her mark on the Court, we should emulate the urgency of the leaders of the First Civil Rights Movement—and their patience, as well.

Six Republicans vote against cooperating with International Criminal Court.

          The House passed the Ukraine Invasion War Crimes Deterrence and Accountability Act on Wednesday. The Act authorizes the U.S. to provide information to the International Criminal Court in its investigation of Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine. Six Republicans voted against the bill. One member of the Putin caucus, Andy Biggs, attempted to explain his vote by saying that although he supported the investigation of Russia’s war crimes, “I do not support affiliating ourselves with the multilateral institutionalist court, the International Criminal Court.”

          The problem with the quibbling by Andy Biggs, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Paul Gosar is that their votes will be used by Putin to undermine the legitimacy of the ICC’s investigation of Russian war crimes. Their votes are an insult to the Ukrainian civilians killed by Putin’s soldiers.

          But the fact that Congress needed to pass the Act highlights another problem: The U.S. does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC. Indeed, the Trump administration issued sanctions against ICC prosecutors investigating actions by U.S. troops in Afghanistan. (The Biden administration lifted those sanctions.) Sadly, the U.S. is in the company of forty-one nations that refuse to recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC (other nations refusing to recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC include Russia and China).

          The ICC is the subject of many criticisms. But if the international community wants a way to hold individuals accountable for war crimes, they should work toward making the ICC an effective and respected institution. In the meantime, all Americans should support the work of the ICC as it investigates Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine.

The U.N. removes Russia from the Human Rights Council

          The U.N. General Assembly voted to suspend Russia from the U.N. Human Rights Council in the face of mounting war crimes against civilians in Ukraine. Russia responded by saying “Too late! We resigned before you suspended us.” That is a pathetic response, even for Russia. It demonstrates that the U.N. suspension found its mark—Putin’s fragile ego.

          The suspension comes as Ukrainian troops uncover the full extent of the atrocities committed by the retreating Russian troops. President Zelenskyy said that atrocities in Borodyanka exceeded those in Bucha. Germany released intercepted audio of Russian commanders telling troops to “‘Take them all f**king out! —a reference to killing unarmed civilians in Mariupol. Ukraine claimed on Thursday that Russian troops are using mobile crematoria to incinerate the bodies of civilians killed by Russian troops. (The U.S. has not confirmed the Ukrainian report.)

          The West continued to impose sanctions on Russia. The U.S. removed Russia from the “most favored nation” trading status, while the E.U. prohibited coal imports. But that leaves oil and gas still on the table as a source of revenue for Russia.

          Russia admitted that it has suffered “significant losses” in Ukraine. Russia has withdrawn troops from the northern part of the country (near Kyiv) to resupply and reinforce its troops in anticipation of renewed offensive. The Ukrainian general staff reports that the Russian troops waiting to be resupplied live in tents in frigid temperatures, suffer from low morale, and experience resupply delays because of supply chain issues and Western sanctions. See Institute for the Study of War, Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, April 7. Despite these challenges, Putin seems intent on forcing his troops to take control of the Donbas region—as a prelude to a renewed attack on Kyiv. Putin isn’t going away, and the U.S. must maintain its resolve.

Signs of life in N.Y. investigations of Trump?

          New York Attorney General Letitia James asked a court to fine Trump $10,000 per day and hold him in contempt for failing to turn over documents relating to Trump’s tax returns. See NBC News, N.Y. A.G. seeks to hold Donald Trump in civil contempt. Although the investigation by James is civil in nature, it could finally provide insight into Trump’s dubious tax reporting practices.

          And Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said on Thursday that the criminal investigation into Trump’s financial reporting is ongoing. See PBS, Manhattan district attorney says Trump criminal investigation is continuing despite leadership shakeup. There is reason to doubt Bragg’s claim that the investigation is ongoing. A high-profile prosecutor quit last month and sent a letter to Bragg that said, in part, “I believe that your decision not to prosecute Donald Trump now, and on the existing record, is misguided and completely contrary to the public interest.”

Next “Today’s Edition” Podcast: Airlift

          The next Today’s Edition Podcast will take place on Wednesday, April 13 at 7:00 PM Eastern / 4:00 PM Pacific. I will interview Ruth Jaeger of Airlift, which helps support year-round grassroots organizing through “curated partner groups.” I will send a reminder next week before the podcast.

          Observant readers/ listeners may have noted that we have moved the live podcast from Saturdays to Wednesdays. Why? We are experimenting with the time and day to see if we can increase the live audience for the podcast. Having more listeners results in interesting questions and more give-and-take. You can always listen to the recorded version of the podcast but check out the live version if you are interested in the work of the featured guests.

Concluding Thoughts.

          Several readers sent links to a thoughtful essay by Jonathan Last in Bulwark+. Last asks the question, “What if Democrats do everything right and still lose?” Last’s analysis is a balanced consideration of what Democrats have done right and wrong over the last year-and-a-half. While Last isn’t “writing-off” Democratic chances, he is perplexed by polling that shows people who benefitted from the Child Tax Credit passed by Democrats and opposed by Republicans nonetheless favor Republicans going into 2022.

          Rather than deconstruct the reasons for polling anomalies identified by Last, I want to answer the question, “What if Democrats do everything right and still lose?” My answer is that Democrats should continue to “do right” by the American people—and then hire a new P.R. firm. (Or maybe hire a new P.R. firm before 2022.)

          I am optimistic about Democratic chances in 2022, and you should be too. (Many of the reasons for my optimism are cataloged in Last’s article.) But we can’t afford to indulge in fantasies that do not admit the possibility of losses in 2022. The more important point is that we remain committed for the long term. “Winning” or “losing” is not defined by a single set of mid-terms or a single presidential election.

          The arc of history is bending toward a more liberal, open, and tolerant society—because Americans themselves are becoming more educated, urban, and diverse. I am not saying that we should rely on demographics to defeat Republicans. Rather, I am saying that Republicans are so tenacious in their rearguard action because they feel threatened by the natural and inevitable changes to the face of America over the next two decades. Let’s not confuse the dying spasms of the Old South with the unstoppable march towards the promises of the Constitution.

          In the meantime, we must exhibit both the urgency and patience of the First Civil Rights Movement leaders. We will win. It is just a question of time. Don’t create unnecessary anxiety by imposing arbitrary timelines on the definition of success. Just ask Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson!

          Talk to you on Monday! My wife and I will help celebrate the first birthday of our youngest granddaughter. We hope you can find something to celebrate in your life, as well!