Today’s Edition: Action steps.

December 3, 2021

          Here are two actions you can take to pressure the Supreme Court and Congress to protect the constitutional rights recognized in Roe v. Wade.

          First, we can pressure the Justices to respect settled precedent and preserve the judicial doctrines that form the legal understructure of Roe v. Wade. It seems counterintuitive to believe that we can do anything to pressure Justices who are appointed for life. Not true. Some of the Justices care about the legacy and legitimacy of the Court. Others enjoy the power of being one of six Justices who control the majority on the Court. It could be otherwise. The current reactionary majority could be relegated to a permanent minority by enlarging the Court. That would be a bleak future for Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Roberts.

          Though expanding the Court may be a longshot, the threat of expansion was enough to chasten a reactionary majority on the Supreme Court in 1937. The Senate has a bill on its docket that would increase the size of the Court to thirteen. Call Chuck Schumer and your Senators (here) urging them to co-sponsor and pass the Judiciary Act (S.1141). Supreme Court Justices do not live in a vacuum. The media will report a groundswell of support for enlarging the Court. Even if it does not happen immediately, the threat of expansion may be enough to slow or stop the reactionary majority’s religious and social agenda.

          Second, we can pressure Congress to pass legislation to codify the rights recognized in Roe v. Wade. Call your Senators (here) and urge them to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021 (S.1975). You can also use an automated text-bot that will generate a letter from you to your U.S. Senators by texting SIGN PRRBTG to 50409. Please share this information with friends, family, and social media followers. Also, subscribe to Chop Wood, Carry Water by Jessica Craven for daily updates on actions you can take to help preserve democracy.

          Among the flood of commentary regarding the oral argument on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, an op-ed by E.J. Dionne Jr. in the Washington Post struck a chord with readers of this newsletter. See Opinion | The Supreme Court’s pro-gun, pro-life problem - The Washington Post. Dionne makes the point that the Court is allegedly “pro-life” when it comes to abortion, but seemingly unconcerned about the lives of Americans killed by firearms. Dionne says,

          Please tell me: What can the words “pro-life” possibly mean when the same people who want to constrain abortion are eager to make it easier for Americans to obtain and carry deadly weapons?

          How is it “pro-life” for a nation to accept school shootings as a routine part of our daily news feeds? Can it possibly be “pro-life” to pretend that because no law will ever end all such shootings, it’s not worth trying to pass anything that might at least make them less likely?

          Of course, the reactionary majority does not care if it is inconsistent, hypocritical, or dishonest in achieving the social and religious agenda of a small minority of Americans. But most Americans care. It is time we did something about it. Reform the Court—now!

Redistricting after the 2020 Census.

          It has become urban legend that Democrats will not win a majority in either house of Congress for the next decade because of the redistricting gerrymandering by Republicans following the 2020 Census. Republicans will gerrymander to the maximum extent possible. It will be more difficult for some Democrats to win, and the challenge facing Democrats in 2022 and 2024 will increase. But there are limits to gerrymandering when population growth and demographics make it increasingly difficult to create “safe” Republican districts.

          A reader sent a link to a report by Democracy Docket, “Redistricting Rundown: Georgia.” The report is clear-eyed look at the results of redistricting in Georgia. Republicans will likely increase their advantage marginally, but the process will be difficult and will force Republicans to create a number of “safe” Democratic districts and more “competitive” districts. The “net” changes are not as dramatic as we feared. Moreover, the temporary advantages that Republicans grant themselves will erode in the face of the continuing urban growth and diversification of the population. Per Democracy Docket,

While Georgia’s new maps will likely preserve Republican advantages in the state for the next few years, they will not be able to halt the broader trends changing the state’s politics. The suburban counties that powered President Biden and Sens. Ralph Warnock (D) and Jon Ossoff’s (D) victories are growing rapidly and the state’s leftward trend is likely to continue. This month alone, Democrats netted more than 30 seats in statewide municipal elections. The artificial lines created by Republicans may not be able to withstand these changes forever.

          In other words, don’t panic and don’t confuse setback with defeat. The same advice applies at the national level: Republican advantage is increasing, but not by the margins we feared, and Democrats have played hardball in redistricting where they can. See Redistricting Has Maintained The Status Quo So Far. That’s Good For Republicans. | FiveThirtyEight.

          Speaking of Georgia, cue the music for the entrance of Stacey Abrams into the governor’s race.  This is very good news, especially given that she and Senator Raphael Warnock will be on the ballot in 2022. See Slate, “Stacey Abrams could win this time.”

Having two charismatic, energetic Democrats on the ballot for statewide office can only be good for down-ballot races in Georgia. And let’s not forget that Trump is attacking Governor Brian Kemp, who is a credible challenger to Trump in 2024.

          So, don’t believe the urban legend. We can win in 2022!

DOJ Attorney Jeffrey Clark to face criminal contempt referral for refusing to testify before House Select Committee.

          DOJ Attorney Jeffrey Clark plotted with Trump to fire Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen. Clark was actively promoting efforts from within the Department of Justice to convince state legislatures to overturn their election results in 2020 to keep Trump in office. Clark refused to testify in his first appearance before the Committee and will reportedly invoke the 5th Amendment in his second appearance this weekend. As with Steve Bannon, the Committee will ask the House to make a criminal referral to the DOJ for contempt. See CNBC, “Jan. 6 panel votes to hold former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark in contempt.”

          The Department of Justice will thus be faced with the question of whether it will recommend criminal proceedings against an alumnus of the Department. If the DOJ secures an indictment, that will the first action by the DOJ relating to the misconduct in the Department under Trump. Recall that the apathetic Merrick Garland deflected the investigation of DOJ misconduct to the DOJ Inspector General, who is conducting an administrative fact gathering proceeding, not a criminal investigation. Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe lashed out again today at Garland’s inaction. Tribe tweeted,

MEMO TO ATTORNEY GENERAL GARLAND: If one federal judge after another can conclude that it was former President Trump and his inner circle who "stoked the flames of fear" that led to the Jan. 6 violence, where are you and a grand jury?

          Jeffrey Clark has finally realized that he faces criminal exposure for his actions. Good. In the absence of action by Garland, the House Select Committee is the next best thing.

Trump was worse than we thought on Covid.

          Trump lied about when he was first diagnosed with Covid. So did his doctor, his family, and his staff. See Washington Post Editorial, Donald Trump: Superspreader in chief. The worst part of Trump’s deceit is that he debated Joe Biden after receiving a positive test for the coronavirus. Put simply, Trump imperiled the lives of the two major-party nominees in the 2020 presidential election. The recklessness and disregard for national stability is stunning—even for someone who later mounted a failed coup.

          Against Trump’s reckless conduct, Biden has again stepped up against a resurgent variant. On Thursday, he vowed to fight the Omicron variant with “science and speed, not chaos and confusion.” Biden plans “to increase vaccinations and booster shots, more stringent testing for international travelers and plans to make rapid at-home coronavirus testing free for more people.” Biden is not talking about shutdowns of businesses or schools, although the White House did say that “nothing is off the table.” It may be a tough fight to blunt the spread of the Omicron variant, but at the very least we have a president who is willing to act competently, quickly, and in accord with science. We cannot ask for anything more.

Concluding Thoughts.

          In the midst of a rough week, I was buoyed by the candidacies of Stacey Abrams and Beto O’Rourke. Each is qualified candidate and formidable campaigner. They are part of a new generation of rising stars in the Democratic Party who will appeal to younger voters and diverse constituencies. If they represent the future of the Democratic Party, we are in good hands.

          Contrast the candidacies of O’Rourke and Abrams to the recent entry of Dr. Oz into the Pennsylvania race for U.S. Senate. The satirical headline by Andy Borowitz in the New Yorker says it all: “Dr. Oz Hopes to Replace Rand Paul as Biggest Quack in Senate.” In case you have not been paying attention, Dr. Oz is a real doctor turned TV doctor turned supplement huckster and vaccine equivocator. In one of his most reprehensible and reckless comments (for which he has apologized), he suggested that a 2-to-3% increase in the death rate was an acceptable cost of keeping schools open during the pandemic. HuffPo, “Dr. Oz Suggests Schools Should Reopen Because 'Only' 2% To 3% More People Could Die.” (“Any, you know, any life is a life lost, but to get every child back into a school . . . [t]hat might be a tradeoff some folks would consider.”)

          Dr. Oz is emblematic of the descent of the GOP into madness and anti-government conspiracies. Whatever Dr. Oz represents, he is no Glenn Youngkin, the businessman who just won the governor’s race in Virginia. Youngkin was an aberration, Oz is the new normal in the GOP—a normal that will make it more difficult for the GOP to win in general elections. And if Stacey Abrams and Beto O’Rourke are the new normal in the Democratic Party, our future is bright despite present difficulties.

          Have a good weekend everyone. The next newsletter should be in your inbox on Monday morning. Talk to you then!