“Democrats should be proud.”

April 27, 2022

[No audio version for this newsletter]

          The New York Times released a series of post-January 6th phone calls between Kevin McCarthy and other leaders of the GOP in 2021. The conversations demonstrate that McCarthy and GOP leadership believed that their Republican colleagues were acting in a way likely to incite additional violence. As the Times notes, McCarthy believed that the extremists in his caucus were “putting people in jeopardy.”  See NYTimes, McCarthy Feared GOP Lawmakers Put ‘People in Jeopardy’ After Jan. 6. Per the Times,

          Mr. McCarthy’s remarks represent one of the starkest acknowledgments from a Republican leader that the party’s rank-and-file lawmakers played a role in stoking violence on Jan. 6, 2021.

          McCarthy called out Matt Gaetz, Mo Brooks, Lauren Boebert, and Barry Moore for offensive and dangerous language. The conversations show that McCarthy and other GOP leaders were at least considering efforts to punish members who were making the most extreme statements. Possible consequences mentioned by McCarthy included removing those members from committee assignments. In the end, McCarthy took no action to punish his colleagues who engaged in reckless behavior. Instead, he supported the ouster of Rep. Liz Cheney from GOP leadership because she dared to publicly say what McCarthy and others were saying in private.

          Kevin McCarthy aspires to be Speaker of the House, a constitutional office created by the Constitution. “Speaker” is one of the few “officers” of the federal government mentioned in the Constitution. The Speaker represents all Americans in discharging duties central to the peaceful transfer of power. The disclosures by the Times confirm what has been manifest for years: McCarthy is unfit to hold any public office, much less to serve as a constitutional officer of the republic.

House Committee to explore the possibility of a code of ethics for Supreme Court.

          The recent scandal of Justice Thomas refusing to recuse himself from January 6th matters in which his wife is likely a material witness has finally prompted a House committee to consider legislation imposing a code of ethics for the Supreme Court. See The Hill, House panel to explore impeachment, judicial ethics in wake of Ginni Thomas texts.

          The idea of imposing a code of ethics on the Supreme Court has been kicking around for a decade. In 2013, Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his annual report that congressional efforts to impose a code of ethics on the federal judiciary could not extend to the Supreme Court. See ABA Journal, Can Congress impose ethics rules on the US Supreme Court? Justice Roberts reasoned that the Supreme Court is an independent branch of government created by Article III of the Constitution and that, as such, Congress cannot tell the Court’s justices how to comport themselves.

          Even if Roberts is correct (and I am not saying he is), Congress is not without leverage over the Court. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction only over cases “affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party.” The Court’s appellate jurisdiction can be limited by “such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

          Congress could drastically “limit” the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction until the Court adopts an enforceable code of ethics of its own volition. Or Congress could impose “regulations” limiting the Court’s appellate jurisdiction to apply only those cases in which the Court agrees to be bound by the same code of ethics that binds all other federal judges. Either way, Congress should force Justice Roberts to do what he should have done a decade ago—require Supreme Court justices to abide by the same standards that apply to every other federal judge in America.

A list of organizations mentioned in this newsletter since January 1, 2021.

          A regular request from readers is whether I have a list of organizations promoted in Today’s Edition Newsletter. Until today, the answer was “No.” But thanks to the hard work of two readers, that has changed. As I was making a presentation to Indivisible/Columbia group several months ago, reader Judith Katten asked whether I had a list of organizations mentioned in the newsletter. I replied that it was on my wish list of “things to do” but that I didn’t have the bandwidth to review thousands of past editions of the newsletter to compile that list. A few days later, Judith called and volunteered to review my newsletter archive with her friend, Gwenn Mayers, to compile a list of organizations mentioned in the newsletter.

          Judith and Gwenn read every newsletter from January 2021 to February 2022 to compile the attached spreadsheet (viewable here). Thanks to both for their hard work—which is just the beginning! The entries can be sorted by field (date, newsletter title, organization name, etc.) One field includes “tags” that can be searched by activity type, e.g. postcards, registration, youth vote.

          I hope that the spreadsheet will be a helpful resource for people looking for ways to become engaged. My goal is to have a “sponsor” from within each group who can be a “point of contact” for readers who want to become involved. I frequently hear from readers that “I filled out the volunteer form on their website, but I never heard back.” By having a “sponsor” for each organization, I hope that readers who volunteer will receive an immediate and welcoming response. If your organization is listed and doesn’t have a sponsor (or has the wrong person listed), please reach out to me. If your organization did not make the list, please write to me at rbhubbell@gmail.com Please also send any corrections to that email address.

          Thanks again, Judith and Gwenn!

Join Focus for Democracy for a presentation on “Democracy Protection through State Legislative Races.

          From a reader: Join an encore event in support of The States Project on Sunday, May 1 at 5 pm Pacific / 8 pm Eastern. Daniel Squadron, the founder of the States Project, will discuss the vital importance of state legislative races to every aspect of our personal and political lives. To attend, click here to register, and a Zoom link will be emailed to you.

Concluding Thoughts.

          The newsletter is a bit shorter this evening because I was celebrating my birthday at an elegant dinner party hosted by my lovely wife (and Managing Editor). Thank you, Jill, for everything!

          I found the following op-ed on Biden’s positive impact on rural America enlightening: Robert Leonard in NYTimes, Opinion | Biden Has Already Done More for Rural America Than Trump. I recommend Leonard’s entire essay, but his concluding thoughts resonate with comments by readers over the last several months:

          Democrats should be proud of what the party has been and is—the party of Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare, of greater opportunity for more and more Americans —and what it is and what it stands for, and their values: for smart government being part of the solution, not the problem; for health care as a right, not a privilege; for clean water and air and effective climate solutions; for taxation that doesn’t favor the rich; for equal opportunity for all; for life chances and opportunities that aren’t determined by one’s ZIP code, race, gender, faith, sexual orientation or gender identity.

          What he said!

          Talk to you tomorrow!