Oct 5, 2022·edited Oct 5, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
"One of the anchors for my optimism is that America is on a path to becoming more urban, educated, and diverse—and there is nothing Republicans can do about that fact. I do not raise this point to say that Democrats can rely on demographics to defeat MAGA extremism. Instead, I raise it to say that the increasing urbanization, education, and diversity of America will make it more difficult for white conservative legislatures to maintain their power through racial gerrymandering. At some point, the math simply won’t support the maintenance of majority-white congressional districts."
Oh but they will! Given the nature of political organization in America, where 44milion Californians have the same number of senators as 750,000 citizens of Wyoming do, the "increasing urbanization" will have the "educated and diverse Americans" in fewer and fewer bigger and bigger places, while those who remain back in Flyoverville will have an easier and easier time electing the anti-urban reactionaries they want.
You might want to go read some English history on the Rotten Boroughs and the (literal) battle to get to the Reform Act of 1832. Look up "Peterloo." It literally took a second English Revolution to make that change.
Unfortunately, given the rigidity of our political organization through the Consititution, the only way we could accomplish something similar would be through an Article V Convention, which is fraught with even more danger than things remaining as they are, since the organization of that will give a state of 750,000 the same number of votes to change the constitution as a state of 44million.
Hi, TC. you are right about the Senate. the best we can do there is to abolish the filibuster. But as to the House, one reason we avoided the gerrymandering apocalypse of 2021 is that Republicans have squeezed every advantage they can out of their existing demographics. They opted to defend the status quo rather than expand the map. By 2040, whites will be the minority population in Alabama if present trends continue (and there is every reason to believe they will accelerate given that deaths are exceeding births in many white rural counties). It is simply mathematically impossible to draw six racially gerrymandered districts of equal population distribution when only half the population is white.
TC, While you pose a valid concern, I would advise considering structural changes that would require simple majorities in both federal chambers, presuming we have 50 Senators willing either to reform or set aside the filibuster. I would start with revisiting the 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act, which set House membership at 435. At that time, each House member represented 280,000 constituents on average. Because since then the population virtually has doubled, that figure today is 760,000 on average. I imagine adding 100 seats would redress the imbalance and create greater accountability to an increasingly larger and more diverse population.
Additionally, I would note that getting serious about D.C. Statehood is long overdue and has strong public support.
Thank you!!! As a DC resident who has been re-awakened to political activism, (took a break after my hippie days!) it has been heart-breakingly frustrating that WE HAVE NO VOTING REPRESENtATIVES in Congress!!!
Hello, Chaplain Terry. I believe you might have identified the source of much of the trouble in my life. I DIDN'T TAKE A BREAK FROM MY HIPPIE DAYS. I will speak up in my own defense only to say that nobody told me I could take a break.
As a serious note, you are absolutely right about the District having no voting representatives. It's one of those facts about this country I can only call "silly."
Thanks for the chuckle at the end of the day! For me it was life circumstances, and I was being a bit flippant about taking a break, in that there were certain things I put effort and energy into, especially through my creative works. But getting this involved in politics, especially in a mid term election, is quite new for me. But I did march for Cesar Chavez and the farmworkers!
Thanks for your empathy about the District. I would actually go beyond silly to cynical because the only reason statehood is being blocked is because our population is some ridiculously high percentage Democratic -
Chaplain, Your last paragraph is spot on and an example, notwithstanding the importance of state and local elections, of why we must use these last nearly 5 weeks to do all we can to affect the outcome of U.S.House and Senate races.
Indeed! That's why I finally ordered my postcards, deciding that propagating Heather and Robert on FB and Twitter and posting as much non-snarky comments as I can isn't enough.
Much of my adult life has played out during the after glow of the movements of 1960s and ‘70s. I suppose that many of us had a false sense of security and we lived our lives not looking over our shoulder (as we are now). We had Martin Luther King Jr., John Lewis, and Obama! I also understand we had work to do i.e., Afghanistan and people with different color skin could not/still can’t leave the house without worrying what damage they would incur because of racial inequality.
I do not want to apologize for having enjoyed much of my time unfettered from the worry, discord, and lack of humanity we now face (exponentially). I don’t want to be made to feel bad or vapid for expecting that our family (the USA) do better to facilitate equality, fairness, right action, law and order.
We no longer have the luxury to sit on laurels, we never did. The disparate world between rich and everyone else is now threatening democracy. Hindsight is 20/20. Now is time for action.
Yes! You are welcome. And I would just add that I've never experienced any good from apologizing for (or feeling ashamed of) my past decisions and/or way of living, unless there was a specific person I have harmed and to whom I need to make amends.
I think you are right that "The disparate world between rich and everyone else is now threatening democracy." So now that I see that so clearly, I am taking what action I can - while at the same time finding as many moments of connection and joy as I can right now. Those moments don't need to wait until every fight is won - and in fact can be a source of inspiration and energy for our actions for democracy. Blessings,
Chaplain, I would note, along with empathizing with your anguish, the rest of us also are painfully aware of how a disenfranchised D.C. dilutes our votes as well.
As one of the finance people in this group, keep in mind that adding 100 representatives & their staffs increases the federal budget significantly. I am not saying not to up the number of reps, just that a financing stream needs to be identified too.
I am not incentivized enough to look it up, but I wonder what percentage of the annual budget 100 representatives and their staffs amount to - I suspect it can’t possibly be enough to make the proposal not worthwhile
Taking some huge short steps, I took the house appropriations budget (4.8b) divided by 435 then multiplied by 100 to get a rough estimate cost of $1,098,376,092. I'm assuming that the original amount includes the cost for office space for staff. (you made me curious). Thanks for the fun suggestion.
“The legislation provides annual funding for the Legislative Branch of the United States government, including the United State House of Representatives, the Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Library of Congress.“
The figure you mention is a large increase over 2022 and primarily includes increases in Capitol security.
It still would be very interesting to know the actual cost. But I don’t think it would be $1 billion…
Betsy, While I’m following your discussion with DW, I’m also left with the question of whether cost ought even to be a factor were Congress to summon the will to reform its institution to make it more democratic. Said reform, I would note, also would affect the awarding of Presidential electors, such that each elector would represent fewer voters. Given that we’re not even close to having the votes to abolish the electoral college, in my view, picking up an additional 100 House seats would render an enormous benefit.
@Citizen60, If memory serves, passage of the 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act was a reasonable response to the rapidly increasing number of House members at that time. In my view, the dumb part was not repealing the Act a long time ago.
@Citizen60, As I understand, the point was to make the process of apportionment more manageable. I imagine, in 1929, that setting House membership at 435 made sense, given the ratio, then, was 270,000 constituents on average per representative. However, as stated in my original response, that ratio, due to population growth that virtually has doubled, now stands at 760,000 constituents on average per representative. Hence my call, which should have happened earlier, to add more House seats.
"...as the reactionary majority pivots to fact-free and precedent-free jurisprudence, Justice Jackson’s style is necessary to expose the hypocrisy and cynicism of justices who seem more interested in spouting misleading soundbites than upholding the rule of law."
When all is said and done, the reason the GOP is acting the way it is is quite simple--disgusting but simple. Demographics are against them, and they cannot survive as a party that wins elections because the electorate is shifting big time. They realize that the only way they can hold on to power is to keep people entitled to vote from voting. It really all boils down to that. And, since, for a long time now, they have had no scruples and no interest in respecting our system unless it keeps them in wealth and power, they will let the worst among them set the standard. They are just that desperate. I remain hopeful about turning this around, but it will take time and persistence, and living through this process is HELL.
Thank you, Robert, for the breadth of your commentary. Two points:
- First, as you note, In Steve Vladek's Twitter-feed analysis provides a good analysis of the merits of Trumps petition to the high court. What stands out to me his second takeaway from the filing (see #11 in his Twitter feed):
"This is what good lawyers do who are stuck due to appease bad clients: the jurisdictional argument is narrow, technical, and non-frivolous. It's a way of filing *something* in the Supreme Court without going all the way to crazy town and or acting unethically."
- Second, Kate Riga, in her analysis of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's commentary, demonstrates that this woman is more than willing and capable to write opinions that will completely refute the radical majority's misappropriation and malevolent use of Originalism to underpin their political radicalization (white, Christian) of the Constitution. Ms. Riga cites the following commentary by Judge Brown Jackson:
"[T]he framers themselves adopted the equal protection clause, the 14th Amendment, the 15th Amendment in a race-conscious way. . . I looked at the report that was submitted by the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted the 14th Amendment, and that report says that the entire point of the amendment was to secure rights of the freed former slaves."
Quoting from the legislator who introduced the 14th Amendment, Judge Brown Jackson goes on to note that the constitutional foundation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was "designed to make people who had less opportunity and less rights equal to white citizens."
I can hear the air whistling out of Judge Thomas', Alito's and Gorsuch's balloon.
As you deftly noted yesterday and quoting from the legislator who introduced the amendment, Judge Brown Jackson is providing the fundamental legal bases that will guide a rebalanced Court to overturn the ungrounded and malicious decisions of the radical six Supreme Court justices. Not taking away anything away from Judges Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, Judge Brown Jackson is exactly the justice we need on the Court at this time. Kudos to Joe Biden and those who recognized Judge Brown Jackson's extraordinary brilliance.
Oct 5, 2022·edited Oct 5, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
"While the absolute number of whites in Alabama has been shrinking, the absolute number of Blacks and Hispanics has been growing.
Here’s my point: It will become nearly impossible for the Alabama legislature to cram enough white voters into six majority-white congressional districts after the 2030 Census."
I spent the summer of 1964 with my Alabama family--mother, aunts, cousins-- having left university after the funds were cut off in response to my involvement with the Civil Rights Movement. It was a summer of unrest across the country and a very bad summer for relations with my family. The small city where they live was tense, like everywhere in the state, white citizens were indignant and frightened, black citizens just beginning to feel a change in the air.
There was tension all over the place. In my mother's apartment building, I met a husband and wife who were there trying to do research for a biography of George Wallace. Their obviously liberal sympathies made them the target of a vicious hostility, and I was forbidden to visit them.
But that was at the beginning and with all the tension and all the anger and all the fear, there was still the underlying hum of great energy and hope.
With hindsight, I can see the slow movement in that one city from the summer of voter registration and death in Mississippi to where we are today, as you typed those words.
The last time I was in my Alabama town was maybe 6-8 years ago and I could hardly stand to be there. It is a town of sorrow. Downtown is shuttered and broken. The streets are empty, the parking lots of strip malls populated by a combination of frightened elderly white women and young black men who seem to be straining to find some rage but are too banged up to muster it.
It is like the blasted landscape of a terrible sci-fi film shot with a video camera on cheap sets. I can't describe the real awfulness.
Alabama failed everybody when they pushed back against the tide of a demand by both blacks and whites for the rights of black citizens. They refused, and they failed, and the mess is there to see. All of the members of my family but one have left, have fled at least as far as Mobile and the more diverse culture of the Gulf. I think, if people had the money, darned near everybody would be gone.
Meanwhile, here we are, in the world of 2022, when Alabama is once again pushing--on every front--against life, and--the worst thing of all to me--we are once again counting up the poker chips by color. Blacks will vote this way; whites will vote that way.
On some days, your unfailing optimism is what allows me to see a little light at the end of whatever the current tunnel might be. On other days, Mr. H. your unfailing optimism just ticks me off.
I'm grateful for you on both, counts, sir.
IYour words above, not the center of your post today, have touched my old soul and made me very sad for the moment.
There's a joke that Washington DC is sixty square miles surrounded by reality. Seems like the Supreme Court should be a butt of a similar joke. I do applaud Justice Jackson. Sounds like she is the right person at the right time. Besides her excellent arguments, she is also known to be a consensus builder. So maybe she will at least moderate some of the worse of the reactionaries. For me personally, I've had it with this Court and have no intention of being part of their highly flawed "theocracy". Civil, non-violent disobedience seems in order when they are decimating human rights and the rule of law. We, the People, all of us this time.
We as a nation can't wait until 2030; I sure as hell can't. I know you're not advocating a wait-and-see stance, Robert, as you are always encouraging our positive involvement in the political process. Still, I am disheartened by all the evil that can be done in the years ahead before demographics can make a difference. I will keep plugging along, writing postcards and supporting candidates and marching, because doing nothing is unacceptable.
I understand your frustration, but if it takes until 2030 to make things right, we must do so. Republicans plotted for 50 years to overturn Roe. There is a lesson in that.
I think you've nailed it here. I remember seeing the article in WaPo with the headline, "The GOP's 49-year Crusade to Overturn Roe," and thinking that we liberals and Democrats don't or can't stay focused that long. Half a century. They waited and they planned. And they won. Yes, we have to learn how to do that. It's an emergency. Thanks for the reminder.
Thank you….I must add that the people have a certain infatuation with celebrity. That said, even Hershel Walker’s son said the guy is lying, uncaring for the women with whom he had children. Walker is totally unqualified to be a US Senator. I can only hope that the people of Georgia will come out to vote and send Rev. Warnock back to finish the work he started.
We get the government we vote for……it is very scary.
The Former Guy had 14 seasons of TV exposure as a tough, no-nonsense guy before being hand picked as GOP presidential candidate. I'll never forget seeing an interview of young single mother, dental assistant raising a daughter, expressing great joy that her "hero" was running for president. She "knew him" from those 14 seasons. So how do we make some new "celebrities"? I think Beto, John Fetterman and perhaps even Pete Buttigieg might be on the right track.
If you have a chance go to YouTube and listen to Judge Jackson as she demonstrates what a real Supreme Court Justice sounds like. We need 4 more like her. The following quote from Dan Pfeiffer sums up in my opinion the challenge we have in the midterms. “ There is a dynamic playing out now. MAGA Republicans who voted against the American Rescue Plan, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, and the rest of the Biden agenda are taking credit for projects in their districts. The problem is that most voters — the voters who decide elections — already assume the worst about politicians. Hypocrisy and dishonesty are priced into the baseline. You are not giving them new or actionable information when you point out hypocrisy. Attacking hypocrisy while fun is not the way to win. We need to promote what we will do when elected and how it benefits the voter and discuss what we are for rather than what we are against.
The problem is Democrats are terrible at messaging, and didn’t capitalize on the opportunity to “villianize” Republicans for voting against their constituents loudly and consistently since the votes.
What have you heard about Rick Scott voting against aid for Florida from Democrats? Crickets
I don’t remember which show on MSNBC I think Nicole Wallace but they showed the migration of Hispanics and Latinos to the Republican Party. I don’t understand why Democrats aren’t doing a better job of helping to understand that overall they are voting against their own best interests . I think this is unfortunate.
I don’t know how common this actually is across the US but in my area (quasi rural, quasi high-tech) of Oregon, I have run across many Mexicans that are Mormon.
Just trying to recall, how did Judge Katanji Brown Jackson, with her brilliant mind, superb communications skills, and positively magnetic personality end up on SCOTUS? Of all the fine candidates, who finally chose her? Oh, could it have been that old guy, the one who’s not a great orator?
As you imply, Biden chose her, and the Senate confirmed her, per the Constitution. I suspect that even McConnell would not dare mess with this one, even if he could. He's losing power and knows it.
Dana Loesch, a former spokesperson for the National Rifle Association and a former writer and editor for the right-wing media outlet Breitbart, made the position of party leaders clear: “I don’t care if Herschel Walker paid to abort endangered baby eagles,” she said. “I want control of the Senate.”
And this is the current issue I have with the Republican party and those who vote R down the line no matter what. They genuinely don't care about civil rights, America, or having any sense of duty to doing the right thing. The only thing they care about is their team winning, and when push comes to shove, they will always choose an extremist over democracy or what is best for the country. There is no reasoning or arguing in good faith with these folks at times.
Let's see how it plays out! I come from a psych background, with a need to find to identify emotional drivers. These folk are staunch religious nuts (as opposed to spiritual), raised on the lives of the martyrs. They're blinded by their imagined glory doing The Church's holy work. Oh, the delicious ecstasy of the flames licking at my robes!
Sorry, I got carried away. That's my 5 cent Lucy take on the cardinals of the Supreme Court.
You and TC are right that our country is becoming more urban and diverse and statistics support this. I read about this a few years ago. I don’t know the exact timing of when people of color will outnumber white people but I think it might be by 2035 or 2040.
I think this is why the former guy and his cult resort to all the lies and obvious cheating. They’re scared and think that that is the way they will “win” but you can’t argue with math and statistics.
We just have to keep doing what we’re doing to hold them accountable for the lies and cheating. It’s the only way to keep them from ruining our democracy.
A relevant and fascinating fact from Ezra Klein’s “Why We’re Polarized” (Chapter 5) is that white Christians became the minority while Obama was president, around 2012. Also he reports that 7 out of 10 seniors (over 65?) are white Christians while <3 out of 10 “younger voters” are. So, in a very real sense the endgame for that long-dominant group is already upon them. Thus the desperation.
"One of the anchors for my optimism is that America is on a path to becoming more urban, educated, and diverse—and there is nothing Republicans can do about that fact. I do not raise this point to say that Democrats can rely on demographics to defeat MAGA extremism. Instead, I raise it to say that the increasing urbanization, education, and diversity of America will make it more difficult for white conservative legislatures to maintain their power through racial gerrymandering. At some point, the math simply won’t support the maintenance of majority-white congressional districts."
Oh but they will! Given the nature of political organization in America, where 44milion Californians have the same number of senators as 750,000 citizens of Wyoming do, the "increasing urbanization" will have the "educated and diverse Americans" in fewer and fewer bigger and bigger places, while those who remain back in Flyoverville will have an easier and easier time electing the anti-urban reactionaries they want.
You might want to go read some English history on the Rotten Boroughs and the (literal) battle to get to the Reform Act of 1832. Look up "Peterloo." It literally took a second English Revolution to make that change.
Unfortunately, given the rigidity of our political organization through the Consititution, the only way we could accomplish something similar would be through an Article V Convention, which is fraught with even more danger than things remaining as they are, since the organization of that will give a state of 750,000 the same number of votes to change the constitution as a state of 44million.
Hi, TC. you are right about the Senate. the best we can do there is to abolish the filibuster. But as to the House, one reason we avoided the gerrymandering apocalypse of 2021 is that Republicans have squeezed every advantage they can out of their existing demographics. They opted to defend the status quo rather than expand the map. By 2040, whites will be the minority population in Alabama if present trends continue (and there is every reason to believe they will accelerate given that deaths are exceeding births in many white rural counties). It is simply mathematically impossible to draw six racially gerrymandered districts of equal population distribution when only half the population is white.
TC, While you pose a valid concern, I would advise considering structural changes that would require simple majorities in both federal chambers, presuming we have 50 Senators willing either to reform or set aside the filibuster. I would start with revisiting the 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act, which set House membership at 435. At that time, each House member represented 280,000 constituents on average. Because since then the population virtually has doubled, that figure today is 760,000 on average. I imagine adding 100 seats would redress the imbalance and create greater accountability to an increasingly larger and more diverse population.
Additionally, I would note that getting serious about D.C. Statehood is long overdue and has strong public support.
And Puerto Rico statehood as well?
Cathy, Certainly down the road, but I would suggest starting with D.C.
Thank you!!! As a DC resident who has been re-awakened to political activism, (took a break after my hippie days!) it has been heart-breakingly frustrating that WE HAVE NO VOTING REPRESENtATIVES in Congress!!!
Hello, Chaplain Terry. I believe you might have identified the source of much of the trouble in my life. I DIDN'T TAKE A BREAK FROM MY HIPPIE DAYS. I will speak up in my own defense only to say that nobody told me I could take a break.
As a serious note, you are absolutely right about the District having no voting representatives. It's one of those facts about this country I can only call "silly."
Thanks for the chuckle at the end of the day! For me it was life circumstances, and I was being a bit flippant about taking a break, in that there were certain things I put effort and energy into, especially through my creative works. But getting this involved in politics, especially in a mid term election, is quite new for me. But I did march for Cesar Chavez and the farmworkers!
Thanks for your empathy about the District. I would actually go beyond silly to cynical because the only reason statehood is being blocked is because our population is some ridiculously high percentage Democratic -
Chaplain, Your last paragraph is spot on and an example, notwithstanding the importance of state and local elections, of why we must use these last nearly 5 weeks to do all we can to affect the outcome of U.S.House and Senate races.
Indeed! That's why I finally ordered my postcards, deciding that propagating Heather and Robert on FB and Twitter and posting as much non-snarky comments as I can isn't enough.
Thank you Chaplain Terry and Dean Robertson.
Much of my adult life has played out during the after glow of the movements of 1960s and ‘70s. I suppose that many of us had a false sense of security and we lived our lives not looking over our shoulder (as we are now). We had Martin Luther King Jr., John Lewis, and Obama! I also understand we had work to do i.e., Afghanistan and people with different color skin could not/still can’t leave the house without worrying what damage they would incur because of racial inequality.
I do not want to apologize for having enjoyed much of my time unfettered from the worry, discord, and lack of humanity we now face (exponentially). I don’t want to be made to feel bad or vapid for expecting that our family (the USA) do better to facilitate equality, fairness, right action, law and order.
We no longer have the luxury to sit on laurels, we never did. The disparate world between rich and everyone else is now threatening democracy. Hindsight is 20/20. Now is time for action.
Yes! You are welcome. And I would just add that I've never experienced any good from apologizing for (or feeling ashamed of) my past decisions and/or way of living, unless there was a specific person I have harmed and to whom I need to make amends.
I think you are right that "The disparate world between rich and everyone else is now threatening democracy." So now that I see that so clearly, I am taking what action I can - while at the same time finding as many moments of connection and joy as I can right now. Those moments don't need to wait until every fight is won - and in fact can be a source of inspiration and energy for our actions for democracy. Blessings,
Chaplain, I would note, along with empathizing with your anguish, the rest of us also are painfully aware of how a disenfranchised D.C. dilutes our votes as well.
As one of the finance people in this group, keep in mind that adding 100 representatives & their staffs increases the federal budget significantly. I am not saying not to up the number of reps, just that a financing stream needs to be identified too.
I am not incentivized enough to look it up, but I wonder what percentage of the annual budget 100 representatives and their staffs amount to - I suspect it can’t possibly be enough to make the proposal not worthwhile
Taking some huge short steps, I took the house appropriations budget (4.8b) divided by 435 then multiplied by 100 to get a rough estimate cost of $1,098,376,092. I'm assuming that the original amount includes the cost for office space for staff. (you made me curious). Thanks for the fun suggestion.
From appropriations.house.gov
“The legislation provides annual funding for the Legislative Branch of the United States government, including the United State House of Representatives, the Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Library of Congress.“
The figure you mention is a large increase over 2022 and primarily includes increases in Capitol security.
It still would be very interesting to know the actual cost. But I don’t think it would be $1 billion…
Betsy, While I’m following your discussion with DW, I’m also left with the question of whether cost ought even to be a factor were Congress to summon the will to reform its institution to make it more democratic. Said reform, I would note, also would affect the awarding of Presidential electors, such that each elector would represent fewer voters. Given that we’re not even close to having the votes to abolish the electoral college, in my view, picking up an additional 100 House seats would render an enormous benefit.
Dumbest act ever passed—limiting Congressional Representation so it is able to fit into an old chamber for appearance’s sake.
@Citizen60, If memory serves, passage of the 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act was a reasonable response to the rapidly increasing number of House members at that time. In my view, the dumb part was not repealing the Act a long time ago.
I agree it should be repealed. I am unclear why it was ever passed in the first place.
@Citizen60, As I understand, the point was to make the process of apportionment more manageable. I imagine, in 1929, that setting House membership at 435 made sense, given the ratio, then, was 270,000 constituents on average per representative. However, as stated in my original response, that ratio, due to population growth that virtually has doubled, now stands at 760,000 constituents on average per representative. Hence my call, which should have happened earlier, to add more House seats.
Oh dear
interesting. Will look this up.
"...as the reactionary majority pivots to fact-free and precedent-free jurisprudence, Justice Jackson’s style is necessary to expose the hypocrisy and cynicism of justices who seem more interested in spouting misleading soundbites than upholding the rule of law."
SIGH....
The six “fact-free and precedent-free” conservatives. An apt description.
Justice Jackson in one day with a single oral argument has already influenced the atmosphere of this rogue court.
When all is said and done, the reason the GOP is acting the way it is is quite simple--disgusting but simple. Demographics are against them, and they cannot survive as a party that wins elections because the electorate is shifting big time. They realize that the only way they can hold on to power is to keep people entitled to vote from voting. It really all boils down to that. And, since, for a long time now, they have had no scruples and no interest in respecting our system unless it keeps them in wealth and power, they will let the worst among them set the standard. They are just that desperate. I remain hopeful about turning this around, but it will take time and persistence, and living through this process is HELL.
Thank you, Robert, for the breadth of your commentary. Two points:
- First, as you note, In Steve Vladek's Twitter-feed analysis provides a good analysis of the merits of Trumps petition to the high court. What stands out to me his second takeaway from the filing (see #11 in his Twitter feed):
"This is what good lawyers do who are stuck due to appease bad clients: the jurisdictional argument is narrow, technical, and non-frivolous. It's a way of filing *something* in the Supreme Court without going all the way to crazy town and or acting unethically."
- Second, Kate Riga, in her analysis of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's commentary, demonstrates that this woman is more than willing and capable to write opinions that will completely refute the radical majority's misappropriation and malevolent use of Originalism to underpin their political radicalization (white, Christian) of the Constitution. Ms. Riga cites the following commentary by Judge Brown Jackson:
"[T]he framers themselves adopted the equal protection clause, the 14th Amendment, the 15th Amendment in a race-conscious way. . . I looked at the report that was submitted by the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted the 14th Amendment, and that report says that the entire point of the amendment was to secure rights of the freed former slaves."
Quoting from the legislator who introduced the 14th Amendment, Judge Brown Jackson goes on to note that the constitutional foundation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was "designed to make people who had less opportunity and less rights equal to white citizens."
I can hear the air whistling out of Judge Thomas', Alito's and Gorsuch's balloon.
As you deftly noted yesterday and quoting from the legislator who introduced the amendment, Judge Brown Jackson is providing the fundamental legal bases that will guide a rebalanced Court to overturn the ungrounded and malicious decisions of the radical six Supreme Court justices. Not taking away anything away from Judges Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, Judge Brown Jackson is exactly the justice we need on the Court at this time. Kudos to Joe Biden and those who recognized Judge Brown Jackson's extraordinary brilliance.
"While the absolute number of whites in Alabama has been shrinking, the absolute number of Blacks and Hispanics has been growing.
Here’s my point: It will become nearly impossible for the Alabama legislature to cram enough white voters into six majority-white congressional districts after the 2030 Census."
I spent the summer of 1964 with my Alabama family--mother, aunts, cousins-- having left university after the funds were cut off in response to my involvement with the Civil Rights Movement. It was a summer of unrest across the country and a very bad summer for relations with my family. The small city where they live was tense, like everywhere in the state, white citizens were indignant and frightened, black citizens just beginning to feel a change in the air.
There was tension all over the place. In my mother's apartment building, I met a husband and wife who were there trying to do research for a biography of George Wallace. Their obviously liberal sympathies made them the target of a vicious hostility, and I was forbidden to visit them.
But that was at the beginning and with all the tension and all the anger and all the fear, there was still the underlying hum of great energy and hope.
With hindsight, I can see the slow movement in that one city from the summer of voter registration and death in Mississippi to where we are today, as you typed those words.
The last time I was in my Alabama town was maybe 6-8 years ago and I could hardly stand to be there. It is a town of sorrow. Downtown is shuttered and broken. The streets are empty, the parking lots of strip malls populated by a combination of frightened elderly white women and young black men who seem to be straining to find some rage but are too banged up to muster it.
It is like the blasted landscape of a terrible sci-fi film shot with a video camera on cheap sets. I can't describe the real awfulness.
Alabama failed everybody when they pushed back against the tide of a demand by both blacks and whites for the rights of black citizens. They refused, and they failed, and the mess is there to see. All of the members of my family but one have left, have fled at least as far as Mobile and the more diverse culture of the Gulf. I think, if people had the money, darned near everybody would be gone.
Meanwhile, here we are, in the world of 2022, when Alabama is once again pushing--on every front--against life, and--the worst thing of all to me--we are once again counting up the poker chips by color. Blacks will vote this way; whites will vote that way.
On some days, your unfailing optimism is what allows me to see a little light at the end of whatever the current tunnel might be. On other days, Mr. H. your unfailing optimism just ticks me off.
I'm grateful for you on both, counts, sir.
IYour words above, not the center of your post today, have touched my old soul and made me very sad for the moment.
There's a joke that Washington DC is sixty square miles surrounded by reality. Seems like the Supreme Court should be a butt of a similar joke. I do applaud Justice Jackson. Sounds like she is the right person at the right time. Besides her excellent arguments, she is also known to be a consensus builder. So maybe she will at least moderate some of the worse of the reactionaries. For me personally, I've had it with this Court and have no intention of being part of their highly flawed "theocracy". Civil, non-violent disobedience seems in order when they are decimating human rights and the rule of law. We, the People, all of us this time.
We as a nation can't wait until 2030; I sure as hell can't. I know you're not advocating a wait-and-see stance, Robert, as you are always encouraging our positive involvement in the political process. Still, I am disheartened by all the evil that can be done in the years ahead before demographics can make a difference. I will keep plugging along, writing postcards and supporting candidates and marching, because doing nothing is unacceptable.
I understand your frustration, but if it takes until 2030 to make things right, we must do so. Republicans plotted for 50 years to overturn Roe. There is a lesson in that.
I think you've nailed it here. I remember seeing the article in WaPo with the headline, "The GOP's 49-year Crusade to Overturn Roe," and thinking that we liberals and Democrats don't or can't stay focused that long. Half a century. They waited and they planned. And they won. Yes, we have to learn how to do that. It's an emergency. Thanks for the reminder.
Thank you….I must add that the people have a certain infatuation with celebrity. That said, even Hershel Walker’s son said the guy is lying, uncaring for the women with whom he had children. Walker is totally unqualified to be a US Senator. I can only hope that the people of Georgia will come out to vote and send Rev. Warnock back to finish the work he started.
We get the government we vote for……it is very scary.
The Former Guy had 14 seasons of TV exposure as a tough, no-nonsense guy before being hand picked as GOP presidential candidate. I'll never forget seeing an interview of young single mother, dental assistant raising a daughter, expressing great joy that her "hero" was running for president. She "knew him" from those 14 seasons. So how do we make some new "celebrities"? I think Beto, John Fetterman and perhaps even Pete Buttigieg might be on the right track.
If you have a chance go to YouTube and listen to Judge Jackson as she demonstrates what a real Supreme Court Justice sounds like. We need 4 more like her. The following quote from Dan Pfeiffer sums up in my opinion the challenge we have in the midterms. “ There is a dynamic playing out now. MAGA Republicans who voted against the American Rescue Plan, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, and the rest of the Biden agenda are taking credit for projects in their districts. The problem is that most voters — the voters who decide elections — already assume the worst about politicians. Hypocrisy and dishonesty are priced into the baseline. You are not giving them new or actionable information when you point out hypocrisy. Attacking hypocrisy while fun is not the way to win. We need to promote what we will do when elected and how it benefits the voter and discuss what we are for rather than what we are against.
The problem is Democrats are terrible at messaging, and didn’t capitalize on the opportunity to “villianize” Republicans for voting against their constituents loudly and consistently since the votes.
What have you heard about Rick Scott voting against aid for Florida from Democrats? Crickets
I don’t remember which show on MSNBC I think Nicole Wallace but they showed the migration of Hispanics and Latinos to the Republican Party. I don’t understand why Democrats aren’t doing a better job of helping to understand that overall they are voting against their own best interests . I think this is unfortunate.
From Pew Research: Among Latino Christians, who comprise 99% of Latinos who profess a religious faith, 39% say they use the terms “born again” or “evangelical” https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2007/05/13/u-s-hispanics-who-are-evangelicals/
I don’t know how common this actually is across the US but in my area (quasi rural, quasi high-tech) of Oregon, I have run across many Mexicans that are Mormon.
Just trying to recall, how did Judge Katanji Brown Jackson, with her brilliant mind, superb communications skills, and positively magnetic personality end up on SCOTUS? Of all the fine candidates, who finally chose her? Oh, could it have been that old guy, the one who’s not a great orator?
As you imply, Biden chose her, and the Senate confirmed her, per the Constitution. I suspect that even McConnell would not dare mess with this one, even if he could. He's losing power and knows it.
Regarding Herschel Walker...
Dana Loesch, a former spokesperson for the National Rifle Association and a former writer and editor for the right-wing media outlet Breitbart, made the position of party leaders clear: “I don’t care if Herschel Walker paid to abort endangered baby eagles,” she said. “I want control of the Senate.”
And this is the current issue I have with the Republican party and those who vote R down the line no matter what. They genuinely don't care about civil rights, America, or having any sense of duty to doing the right thing. The only thing they care about is their team winning, and when push comes to shove, they will always choose an extremist over democracy or what is best for the country. There is no reasoning or arguing in good faith with these folks at times.
Great newsletter today, thanks Rob
Let's see how it plays out! I come from a psych background, with a need to find to identify emotional drivers. These folk are staunch religious nuts (as opposed to spiritual), raised on the lives of the martyrs. They're blinded by their imagined glory doing The Church's holy work. Oh, the delicious ecstasy of the flames licking at my robes!
Sorry, I got carried away. That's my 5 cent Lucy take on the cardinals of the Supreme Court.
She's brought an air of respectability...and hope.
Rob,
You and TC are right that our country is becoming more urban and diverse and statistics support this. I read about this a few years ago. I don’t know the exact timing of when people of color will outnumber white people but I think it might be by 2035 or 2040.
I think this is why the former guy and his cult resort to all the lies and obvious cheating. They’re scared and think that that is the way they will “win” but you can’t argue with math and statistics.
We just have to keep doing what we’re doing to hold them accountable for the lies and cheating. It’s the only way to keep them from ruining our democracy.
A relevant and fascinating fact from Ezra Klein’s “Why We’re Polarized” (Chapter 5) is that white Christians became the minority while Obama was president, around 2012. Also he reports that 7 out of 10 seniors (over 65?) are white Christians while <3 out of 10 “younger voters” are. So, in a very real sense the endgame for that long-dominant group is already upon them. Thus the desperation.