Supreme Court 

             Strikes Out

 

Imagine you’re at Kauffman Stadium to watch the Royals play the New York Yankees. The game is about to start as the umpires walk onto the field, but instead of wearing their usual dark uniforms, they’re in Yankee pinstripes. You suspect that balls and strikes might not be called fairly.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has described the Court’s job as “calling balls and strikes,” which should mean not favoring any partisan positions, but for the Roberts Court, this often is not the case. Of the nine Justices, five, often six, heavily favor Republican causes or individuals.

The most recent instance is the June ruling in Trump v. United States conferring on former presidents immunity from prosecution for crimes committed as part of official duties. All six conservative justices—three appointed by Trump—signed on to the ruling (one with reservations), while the other three dissented. Part of Justice Sotomayor’s dissent said, “The court effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding.” So ends the cherished American tradition that no person is above the law.

The immunity case is the latest in a series of controversial rulings with little Constitutional basis or Court precedent: ending women’s right to make reproductive decisions, declaring that “corporations are people” entitled to nearly unlimited political contributions, striking down state and local laws regulating guns in public, limiting the ability of agencies like the FDA and the EPA to regulate in areas of their expertise—all rulings favored by the GOP. It’s no wonder that only 1 in 3 Americans trust the Court, an all-time low.

Bias isn’t the only problem. Justices Alito and Thomas have serious ethical issues. Thomas has been treated to expensive vacations by wealthy conservative Harlan Crow who also paid private school costs for Thomas’s great-nephew, none of which was reported as required. Crow donated large sums to organizations filing briefs before the Court, one of which has Thomas’s wife as a trustee, an obvious conflict of interest, but Thomas has refused to recuse himself from the cases.

Shortly after the deadly Capitol attack on January 6, 2021, Justice Alito’s home flew an upside-down U.S. flag, a symbol of election deniers; later, a flag favored by hard-right extremists appeared at his beach house. Alito blamed his wife, an activist involved in the January 6 episode, and indicated he will not recuse himself from relevant cases. He also failed to report an Alaska fishing trip by private jet with a billionaire GOP donor.

Two of the Court’s conservatives owe their seats to Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell who, in 2016, refused to allow a vote on an Obama nominee “because it was an election year” even though the election was nine months away and the Senate had a duty to vote. Trump eventually made the appointment. In 2020, a vacancy occurred six weeks before an election and McConnell changed his own rule and hustled another conservative through a quickie conformation. 

To rebuild confidence in the Court, President Biden has proposed three reforms: a “No One Is Above the Law Amendment” to the Constitution, staggered term limits of 18 years, and an enforceable code of ethics (as in all other federal courts). An amendment is difficult, requiring broad bipartisan support, and term limits might also require an amendment. An ethics code requires only Congressional and presidential approval.

Vice-President Harris has endorsed the Biden reforms. GOP Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has called them “dead on arrival.” 

We the People can save them by electing reform supporters to Congress and the presidency. Court reform is one of many compelling reasons to be informed and vote in the coming election. 

 

No Contest

 

The much anticipated debate between Vice-President Harris and ex-President Trump was like a Navy destroyer doing battle with an old tugboat.

It was a blowout. Harris was in command from the start when she walked to his podium to shake his clearly reluctant hand. After that, it was a master class by a disciplined candidate who had done her homework and a desperate man who usually wandered off topic and sometimes seemed angrily hysterical.

And the ex-president is desperate. Already convicted of 34 felonies in his business finances and judged liable for sexual assault, the presidency would shield him from current federal charges of conspiracy and theft of classified documents.

The debate covered a range of topics. Harris promoted her “opportunity economy” with plans for cash or tax credits for small businesses, first-time home buyers, and new parents, and protections for organized labor. Her opponent called her “a Marxist” and offered no plan to help workers, pushing, instead, tariffs “to make China [and others] pay.” (Tariffs often raise consumer prices here on imported goods from clothing and electronics to vehicles and food, adding to inflation.) 

The ex-president bragged about overturning Roe v. Wade, leaving states to vote on abortion as “everybody wanted,” even though that’s certainly not what “everybody” wanted. Harris promised to work for and sign legislation that would restore women’s freedom to choose.

Asked if he would have done anything differently during the January 6 attack on the Capitol, Trump blamed others, saying Speaker Pelosi and the D.C. mayor were responsible for security. Asked again, he changed the subject. Harris said, “Donald Trump was fired by 81 million people. Clearly, he has a very difficult time processing that.” Her tone was that of a patient adult discussing a child unwilling to face facts.

On foreign policy, Harris was asked about the hurried U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. She pointed out that Trump had negotiated a weak withdrawal agreement with the Taliban, and President Biden was obliged to meet its terms. About Ukraine, she made a forceful case for defending democracy against Putin’s aggression; Trump complained about the cost and refused to say if he wanted Ukraine to win.

Ah, immigration. Baiting Trump for the umpteenth time, Harris invited debate viewers to attend a Trump rally and notice that people, possibly bored, were leaving early. That sent him into a rant about how he had the biggest numbers ever seen and soon launched his usual racist description of America as “a failing country,” blaming immigrant criminals who are ruining “the blood of America.” He said Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating people’s pet cats and dogs. (This is far-right Internet garbage with no factual basis.) 

On energy policy, Trump claimed that solar and wind wouldn’t make us “strong,” and said, “Germany tried that, and within one year, they were back to building normal energy plants.” More garbage. The German Foreign Office soon issued a rebuttal: “Like it or not, Germany’s energy system is fully operational, with more than 50% renewables. And we are shutting down—not building—coal and nuclear plants. Coal will be off the grid by 2038 at the latest. P.S.: We also don’t eat cats and dogs.” 

It's sad when our allies feel compelled to make fun of a candidate for president. London’s Evening Standard, a generally conservative paper, called Trump “a laughingstock.”

The morning after the debate, Trump criticized ABC News moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis, who had done a fine job, calling them “enemies of the people” (again, someone else’s fault). Trump said, “It was my best debate ever” and refused another debate, claiming that only losers want “a rematch.” If that’s true, he should demand one because Kamala Harris was commander-in-chief from start to finish.