JUSTICE STEVENS - THE POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT, IT’S “POLITICS” AND THE NOMINATING PRESIDENTS

This week saw the launching of the thought provoking book, written by ex Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, entitled “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution”. Stevens's, who served for 35 years on the nation’s highest court, proposals highlight important political and cultural issues that are in the very center of the current societal debate. His book and the discussion around it also focuses on the role “politics” play in the Supreme Court and how rare it is to find an “independent” thinking Justice. (The latter is called a “swing” vote and does not vote with the “liberal” or “conservative” wing routinely). In addition, Steven’s current public prominence has put the spotlight on the President who appointed him - the late Gerald Ford. Finally, Steven’s slim volume makes evident the massive “political and philosophical” shift to the right that the Supreme Court has undergone in the last decade or so. In so doing it accentuates the immense and unquestioned power the nine in black robes exert on the destiny of the United States of America. 

All this forces Jay H. Ell to rethink the Founding Fathers’ touching naive belief that nine individuals, who would be the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution even to the extent of vetoing legislation and making law, could be selected solely on their jurisprudence excellence with no thought to their personal and philosophical approach to the law and life in general. Steven’s in his interviews makes it quite clear that one’s world view and therefore political viewpoints do play a role in one’s jurisprudence, even on the nation’s highest court. Also the justices take into account when they are going to resign as there is anxiety as to might be their replacements.

 Again Jay H. Ell wonders what the Founders were thinking, having set up elaborate checks and balances separating the three branches of government, when they entrusted so much power in nine individuals. Especially as they would have life long appointments to be the ultimate arbiters of the law of the land with the wherewithal to reverse Congressional and State legislation.  

President Gerald Ford’s Appointment of Stevens

Ford had only one ambition and that was to become Speaker of the House but as a result of a series of scandals he was first appointed as Vice President in place of Spiro Agnew and then President consequent to Nixon’s resignation. Ford had a single appointment to the Supreme Court - John Paul Stevens. Ford did not participate much in the earlier vetting processes for a nominee and only when it was obvious that Robert Bork, the Justice Department’s nominee, could not gain the nomination because of his close affiliation to the disgraced Nixon, did he consider the alternatives. He chose Stevens because of his, concise opinions, the fact that he was a “fine” lawyer” and his ethical reputation. 

Ford ultimately opined that he was quite content to have his legacy judged by his one nominee to the Supreme court - Stevens. He amplified on his judgement of Stevens by maintaining that he served the nation without any partisan political bias. No Judge could have a greater endorsement than that. Nor has any President been more generous in his praise of a Justice.

JOHN PAUL STEVENS.

Stevens was appointed first by Richard Nixon to the 7th Circuit of Appeals in 1970 where he was considered a “moderate conservative”. His confirmation to the Supreme Court, in 1975, by the Senate was passed by 98 votes to 0. To this day he considers himself a moderate conservative and it is the Supreme Court that has changed not him.

“Idiosyncratic” and Flexible Judge

His position changed on several issues while he was an Associate Justice. He was often the swing vote in landmark legislation and as such exerted a remarkable influence on the law of the land. The areas were his opinions were changed as a result of the arguments presented to the Court were, notably, in Affirmative Action, the permissibility of obscenity in the public place and capitol punishment. He was considered idiosyncratic but gradually sided more and more with the “liberal” wing of the court.

He was notably more conservative in supporting the Federal Government on interstate commerce and on their then strict marijuana laws for example. (Incidentally, he recently changed his views on the subject. He stated that the weight of evidence pointed to it being not much different from alcohol and society’s views on its legitimacy had swung in favor.) Also he did not see flag burning as a freedom of speech right.

Most memorable opinions.

Stevens will be probably remembered most for his dissenting opinions on two highly publicized controversial decisions of the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts. The former relates to Bush versus Gore where he wrote a scathing dissent. He maintained that the Supreme Court by “handing” the Presidency to Bush damaged the Court’s image in the eyes of the country. The latter concerned  the Citizen’s United ruling where according to him the Robert’s court have deemed money more important than the individual voter. The Robert’s authored opinion allowed corporations and individuals to donate any amount of money to Political Action Committees. Stevens also recently criticized the sequel to the latter edict where the Court once again, in the McCutcheon case annulled Congress legislation, as to the amount of money any individual may give directly to candidates in any one election cycle. From a maximum of twenty - three thousand dollars the figure could, according to Justice Kagan, be as much as $23 million.

Six Amendments: “How and Why We Should Change the Constitution”

If this book has not been authored by former Associate Justice Stevens it would have not have found a publisher. It is fanciful at best, not because of its well thought out crisp content, but because of the impossibility of changing the current constitution. (In this current climate, where you cannot get the two political sides to agree on anything other than to adjourn, to expect the two houses to pass anything with a three quarters majority, that a change in the Constitution requires, is a pipe dream. This after getting two thirds of Congress or two- thirds of the States to propose the Constitutional change in the first place.

The Amendments

One of the amendments pertains to the Sovereignty of the State insisting that Congress can mandate States to perform Federal duties in an emergency so as to prevent a national tragedy . Another suggestion relates to the Death Penalty where the Justice’s position evolved over the years to believe that it should be declared unconstitutional. A further proposal relates to the gerrymandering of voter districts by insisting that the constituencies be contiguous. There is a key proposition to limit the money in politics by altering the second amendment, and the final one that has evoked the most discussion thus far. It relates to gun control and the second amendment.

 Stevens as so many others believe that the intent of the Founders has been totally distorted by the NRA and the modern day court has gone along with them. He refers to the senseless killings that have occurred as a result of these interpretations. He maintains that the second amendment and the right to bear arms only maintains to the militia  in each state not to every citizen in the USA. The underlying argument is that this amendment was framed in the context of the war of Independence not to allow the havoc that has now been unleashed in the streets.

It is interesting to note that two of his other suggested amendments relate to two controversies that are having a profound impact on the forthcoming elections. These are gerrymandering of the voter districts to create “safe’ seats and the role that unlimited money is playing in the electoral process.

All in all not a bad contribution from a 94 year old who also left a profound legacy on the bench. If one sits back and reflects on Steven’s objective it is to evolve the Jeffersonian model of democracy to modern day needs.

THANK YOU 41 AND 43 AND ALL THE REST

The Tea Party instead of haranguing the Bushes, (Presidents 41 and 43), should get down on their knees and thank them for Associate Justices Thomas, Alito and Roberts. Especially for Justice Alito who replaced a true swing vote in Sandra Day O’Conner.

Perhaps Gerald Ford was closer to reality than he imagined, when he made the point, albeit indirectly, that a President’s legacy emanates from those who he appoints to the bench. 

Come to think of it there is a disconnect between having been out of office for decades and still having your belief system perpetuated through your judicial appointments. The President is subject to term limits but the final arbiters in society, that he had nominated, can carry on for life. The current Chief Justice, who has the Dickensonian belief that the more money you have the more free speech you are entitled to, could well be in that position for another forty years. He is supported in his quaint notion of democracy by the 78 year old Antonio Scalia who has been on the bench for 30 years, 77 year old Anthony Kennedy who was appointed 26 years ago, 65 year old Clarence Thomas who was elevated to the Court 23 years ago and the most recent nominee 64 year old Samuel Alito who has been an Associate Justice for 8 years.

Jay H. Ell predicts that the Supreme Court is going to involved in many controversial societal issues in the next few years and will become more and more in the public limelight.

Maybe Associate Justice Stevens should have proposed an additional amendment - term limits for Supreme Court Judges.

Just as an aside the thought of Hilary having an 8 year go at picking Judges is at least part of the reason that the Koch brothers and their Kochcracy are spending 100’s of millions of dollars in the mid term elections to prepare the way for her defeat in 2016. Even the Kochs know that Scalia and Kennedy may not live forever.

PUTIN - FOOLS RUSSIAN WHERE ANGELS……

The international scene has been, of late, totally dominated by Vladimir Putin, (Blog: Putin - The Last Russian Tzar?). The Russian President has already bagged  Crimea and is sizing up to do the same to Eastern Ukraine. The media scene, that is generally  conducted like an ongoing soap opera or reality show, has rated “The Putin Show” high up there with the disappearance of the Malaysian aircraft and even more than the Oscar Pistorius murder trial or the sinking of the Korean ferry boat. In the parlance, “This story has legs”.

Now there are many aspects to this saga; Among these include the recreation of the Cold War with Putin making a grab to build up the good old USSR so as to make a game of it versus the USA and NATO; The fear of another Hitler - “This is my last territorial demand”; How to manage Putin and the whole situation diplomatically, politically and militarily as well as what is Putin going to do next? What help if any should be afforded to Ukraine ? Finally, at the end of the day what does this all mean?

PUTIN’S AGENDA.

While ostensibly a diplomatic agreement had been reached between Ukraine, Russia, USA, and the EU it has been ignored by all those that matter. The Russian separatists say they take orders from no one. They have continued to occupy buildings, fly their flag and hang onto their weapons. They claim that the current Ukranian leadership is illegal. Obama predicted this outcome so that Putin is left with all his “options”. At the very least the Ukrainian Presidential election in May will be a shambles.

Thus it should be pretty obvious what Putin is going to do next, (Blog; Putin Pulls Out the Old USSR Playbook). Putin is going to “invade” Eastern Yugoslavia on the pretext that he is responding to local Russian demands and or victimization of the ethnic Russians or whatever. Forty thousand Russian troops on the border of East Ukraine are not there for fun. Next on his agenda may well be supporting the Russian leaning Transitanian section of Muldovia. The latter is close to the port of Odessa which is the last remaining lifeline of Ukraine, or what will be left of it that is, to the world. If Odessa “rises up” to join the good old fatherland, what can poor Putin do other than welcome them with open arms. Putin’s vision ultimately includes the whole of the Ukraine and Muldovia

For the moment this apparently makes Putin a hit in Russia who are hankering for the good old days when nobody but nobody laughed at Russia, aka the USSR. On the international scene Putin adds to his credentials as the uncontrollable brat who backs Syria and Iran and is no pushover to gain his acquiescence to gain sanity in this mad mad world. In short Putin is a player and don’t you forget it. He is sticking to his playbook, where to quote The Queen, in Alice Through The Looking Glass, “Things Mean What I say Them To Mean”

 RESPONSES TO THE CRISIS

The Ukrainian Ambassador to the US appealed for help as Putin was deploying mercenaries to create a situation where he could invade.  He wanted help of the “real kind”. There were no shortages of support for him especially from the “Cold War” and “Hitler” brigade. They added another factor too in that they did not want to see the USA seem “weak”. The influential syndicated right wing columnist Charles Krauthammer hammered Obama for his “pathetic” response and called on him to give Ukraine weapons. In addition he recommended the renewal of the missile defense agreement with Poland and Czechoslovakia. Ambassador Jeffrey who had served in Iraq suggested ground troops in the neighboring countries. Former NATO  commander Wesley Clark maintained that the USA should at least provide Ukraine with “non lethal aid”. This includes communication accessories, body armor, medical supplies and the sharing of intelligence.

The iconic Kissinger stated that rather than get involved the USA should facilitate the Ukrainians  to recognize their historic differences. The Ukrainians should seek conciliation between their two disparate heritages - the West and the East. Really very sweet and almost naive advice from the former pragmatic and most cynical Secretary of State, but as he should know, hardly practical.  

Obama

Thus far Obama has done very little. He has provided 300,000 meals and there was a meeting with the CIA Director and his Ukrainian counterpart. However, he is unlikely to become involved anymore than he has become in the Syrian travesty. Obama has being playing “bad cop” to Kerry’s “good cop” approach to Putin. While Kerry has done everything he can so as not to offend Putin, the POTUS has made it quite clear that he considers Putin a light weight. Putin trying to put the best possible spin on Obama’s disdain of him reflected in a TV interview that he was sure Obama would rescue him if he was drowning!

It is fair to say that Ukraine is going to be thrown under the bus. The USA and NATO are no longer interested in resolving complex problems with simplistic solutions. If you back the Syrian opposition who are you really backing  - Al Quada or the genuine oppressed ? The conventional wisdom is that the Ukraine establishment and military are so infiltrated by the Soviets that who will the NATO forces be helping - Russia or Ukraine? So Obama is content to watch and galvanize the inevitable collapse of Putin’s economy.

Kasparov

Russian dissident Gary Kasparov, former world chess champion, which puts him in the league of Michael Jordan, and Pele in the Russian world, has plenty to contribute in the current crisis.  He adjudged that the Americans “should follow the money”. This was all about Putin and not about Russia. They should put economic sanctions on Putin and the elites that follow him and that might move the latter to sense. Kasparov cautioned the West that negotiating with Putin was a waste of time.

PUTIN’S REALITY

Putin’s reality and prognosis is grim. Even if the one State run opinion poll in Russia is accurate and his ratings are really 80% they are not going to last that for long. His economic and financial predicament is parlous. He spent $50 Billion on the Sochi games and $60 billion on Crimea. According to David Hersezenhorn of the New York Times the Russian economy was in a free fall even before any of the projected sanctions are set into motion. With Putin’s imperialistic machinations, $70 billion has already left the country and it is predicted that that figure can easily double. With 40,000 soldiers on full alert the cash register must be chink chinking along.  

We are beginning to talk real money in a country whose GDP is barely $2 trillion. The bank interest rate has gone up 50% from 5% to 7.5% and the anticipated GDP growth rate has been downgraded from 2.5% to zero for 2014. In addition to the double digit percentage stock exchange drop the ruble value has dropped likewise in tandem. In a country that relies heavily on imports of durable goods this will push up the already high inflation even further. To add insult to injury Russia has heavily invested in Eastern Ukraine that is currently at a standstill. Projects due to start in Russia have been put on hold. Skilled personnel have likewise emigrated in higher than usual numbers.

All this and more before sanctions. The US financial and investing institutions have all been served notice that economic sanctions are on their way. Even before Crimea and Ukraine, let alone the forthcoming sanctions, the picture was not to bright according to Prime Minister Medvedev and Finance Minister Siluanov. There had been overspending by the government at all levels.

So how much longer can Putin pout and strut on the world stage and play out the old USSR playbook? (Blog: Putin - The Last Russian Tzar).There was plenty of bluff in the old USSR but remember no one knew what was going on then. There was the iron curtain. There was no financial interdependence. There was no internet. So Obama’s disdain for the Russian President isn’t based only on his objectionable personality. (Blog: Putin Put In His Place).

PUTIN’S WEAPONS

How can Putin fight back when economic sanctions bite? His main weapon is his energy exports. He can withhold energy from Ukraine and Europe. That factor has to be one that is holding the NATO allies back for the moment as it attempts to arrange for alternate supplies. To say that is a double edged sword for Putin is a masterpiece of understatement. His real only source of capitol will dry up exacerbating his precarious financial woes. Not of course that will eliminate that option from this throwback to the USSR mentality’s armamentarium.

On the international scene he can merely carry on being obnoxious in his support of Syria and Iran. But he has less and less to offer them in terms of money and weapons. And all of this supposes  that  back home they are going to be still cheering him on as the shops empty to make the Russians even more nostalgic for the cold war days.

There is no doubt that Kerry must be working night and day to hammer something out and indeed he did. But that at the end of the day all that did was give Putin the illusion of respectability. Also one never knows how the cookie will crumble but if Jay H. Ell was a betting man he would not be backing Putin.

THE GOP’S “RYANSTONE COWBOY” CHANGES THE 2014 ELECTION NARRATIVE

  THE GOP’S “RYANSTONE COWBOY”  CHANGES THE 2014 ELECTION  NARRATIVE

Following the Dem’s public lovefest over the Obamacare recruitment numbers they received another major boost to their supposedly hopeless chances for the November 2014 elections. Paul Ryan burst onto the scene like the mythical “Rhinestone Cowboy”, as immortalized by Glen Campbell in one of the greatest pop/country western hits of all time. 

He has made a comeback as “The Ryanstone Cowboy, riding out on horse in a star spangled rodeo”. Ryan, Romney’s Vice -Presidential running mate obviously feeling forgotten, (as the Rhinestone Cowboy was) - in the Presidential stakes-, decided to put out a Republican budget and in the process remind everyone that he should be the number one contender for the Republican Presidential nomination. He would show them who it was that could define the  Republican agenda . He needn’t have issued a budget as he had reached a compromise with his Democratic counterpart, basically for each side to do nothing, till 2015. So hot on the heels of Obama’s triumph he fed the Democrats with more fodder to run on. He accentuated the very economic differences that had lost him and Romney the 2012 election campaign. 

RYAN A POLARIZING CHARACTER

When Romney elected Ryan his running mate it was really to give him some Tea Party credentials. Ryan is considered one of the intellects of the Republican Party as well. His agenda then was the same as it is now. Ryan, supported by his mentor and protector Speaker of the House, Boehner, was elevated to the pinnacle policy maker for the GOP in the House. In a nutshell his philosophy was trickle down economics and little or no social welfare programs.. (Blogs: The Unravelling of a Ryan - Post - Akin, 8/22/12 and The Not so Private Ryan and Radicalism, 8/8/12.) 

Ryan also is a staunch Pro Life Catholic and an unashamed admirer of Ayn Rand. 

The “Ryanstone Cowboy” has a number of very positive features. He is consistent and transparent, a rarity in modern day politics. As Obama commented, his 2010, 2012, and 2014 budgets are the same. Ryan’s problem is the world has changed since 2010 while he has yet to.  

IN RYAN’S WORLD THERE ARE “GIVERS” AND “TAKERS”

Ryan has divided Americans up into “The Givers” and “The Takers”. No prizes for who they are supposed to represent. Romney calculated “The Takers” at 47%. Ryan has found an additional group of “Takers”, namely those who have signed up for the Affordable Health Care Act, (AHCA), and the country, aka “The Givers”, cannot afford to pay for it. So axing the ACHA is the centerpiece of his balancing the budget. Now following the success of the ACHA enrollment certain Republican Members were hoping that they could kinda compromise a bit and back those pieces that are helping everybody, including "The Givers".  The provision that no-one could be thrown off insurance or be refused to join one if they had a preexisting medical condition was an example of what these "naive" Republicans were talking about . Also allowing offspring to remain on their parents’ insurance plans till they are 26 years old is another provision many Republicans apparently favor.  

Ryan instead of ignoring these requests, on being questioned as to his budget proposal, maintained that the country could not afford this. (Can you visualize the adds saying that Ryan wants you, once again, to lose your insurance because you had a heart attack. Or your daughter has been diagnosed with a congenital heart condition so you can’t change jobs as she has a precondition and/or you have run out of funds so she can get no more treatment. The reason being he wants to give "The Givers" a tax break!).

Ryan also detailed his cuts on what is called discretionary spending. So exactly what the Democrats want to see defined in a clear cut fashion has been reiterated as Republican Party Policy. Of the total 4.8 trillion dollar cuts, 3.3 trillion are being cut from the low income, “Takers” programs spanning from education to food stamps to health care. “The Givers” on the other hand are given large tax breaks presumably to stimulate the economy for “The Takers”. Medicare as it exists at present is history under the Ryan budget. That alone should be catastrophic for the GOP.

So while Ryan had his first success thrust upon him as the Vice Presidential nominee, he now like the “Rhinestone Cowboy” wants to make a comeback. But the environment has changed. While some members of the Republican caucus are calling for concessions on Obamacare and thereby legitimizing it others are condemning the budget as too liberal. Sarah Palin the Godmother of the Tea Party has called his budget  a “Stinkburger” and apparently the budget is angering the Tea Party base. This response has shown how the world has changed around Ryan. From being the darling of the Tea Party he is now the “Stinkburger”.

The Ryan budget narrowly passed the House and in a rare moment for this Congress 12 Republicans voted against it. It has no hope of passing the Senate but its legitimacy as the Republican manifesto has been consecrated by that vote.

RYAN’S BUDGET, THE DEMOCRATS AND WOMEN

A chief focus of the Democratic strategy has been the rights of women. The President has signed an Executive Order that will ensure that all Federal employees and all those who have Federal Contracts will have to pay equal pay for equal work. He has utilized this as a theme in his ongoing campaigning on the stump. There is no way this will pass into law - the Republicans in the Senate have filibustered it and those in the House won’t even allow it to come up for a vote. 

The National Women’s Law Center has shown how Ryan’s cuts would disproportionately disadvantage women. His massive cuts in discretionary spending impact women as they represent the majority of recipients of this help. For example 70% of the adults receiving Medicaid are women, while 63% of those on Food Stamps are females and 62% of the student Pell grants are the female gender. Women are really hit in the certain programs covered by discretionary spending where they represent the following percentages: supplemental social security programs, (85%), housing vouchers, (82%), and child assistance, (75%). 

The Democratic Central Committee has issued a statement that while the Democrats are pushing for income equality the Ryan budget does the opposite. The budget accentuates their mantra that this is for the benefit of  Koch Brothers who are funding the Republicans, on a scale never witnessed before, in the crucial Senate races:

“The Republican Senate candidates across the country are standing by Charles and David Koch and their reckless agenda that hurts women and their families while benefiting billionaires like the Kochs. By supporting this reckless ‘Koch budget’, GOP Senate candidates are jeopardizing economic security and health care rights for women and their children while providing tax giveaways for millionaires. Republican Senate Candidates are sending a message loud and clear to the women of their States: if elected they would put special interests like the Koch brothers first not women and middle-class families.”

OBAMACARE AND ECONOMIC EQUALITY

All this focus on the AHCA  and having to go on the defensive on the act was not what the Republicans had planned. (Blog; The GOP wins in 2014? - It is the Plutocrats, Obamacare and Voter Suppression - Stupid). The Republicans did not want to have defend anything specific and that is what our “Ryanstone Cowboy” has opened the door to. They did not want examples of their economic plan to defend nor answer any specifics on Obamacare they just wanted a debate about the evils of Obamacare per se and in general that Obama’s socialist policies were putting the country into ruin.The Republicans wanted a generic attack on “big government and collectivism” not to debate single issues. It is thus not surprising that they have once again delayed rolling out their own healthcare plan and Boehner has gone ballistic about supporting certain provisions of Obamacare - it is the Act nothing but the whole act that must go!

The whole thrust of the Democratic 2014 campaign to date had been economic inequality and avoiding AHCA. Now they can run with Obamacare and focus on the very features Ryan maintains “The Givers” cannot afford to pay taxes for!

RYAN’S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND POPE FRANCIS

Under normal circumstances, normal that is since Kennedy was elected in the early sixties, a candidate’s religious beliefs do not largely enter into the equation in Presidential elections. Ryan has borne his religion as a badge of honor thus far with a neutral impact. Forty percent of Americans are Catholics and obviously they are of all political persuasions. (The number has been given a boost by the Latinos). Until Pope Francis came onto the scene there was a lethargy among American Catholics. Also there were no direct Catholic political overtones, rather general statements about helping the poor and the like. Now the successor to the Apostle Paul has said that trickle down economics does not work and income equality is the world’s greatest challenge!

Pope Francis has injected a new life into the Church in the USA. He is humble, walks the walk and desires to rid the Church of it’s bureaucratic domination  and put the scandals and cronyism behind him. But most importantly his number one agenda coincides with that of Obama - income inequality. They both believe it is the issue of our time. There is only one issue that Ryan and the Pope are ad idem with and that is contraception, and that is the one issue 99% of the American women disagree with the Pontiff on. Whether or not the new social policies of this popular pope will be a factor, consciously or unconsciously, remains to be seen. The inescapable fact however is that the  Republican Party economic policy is in direct odds with the new Pontiff’s number one priority.

I am sure certain Republicans would like to tell the Pope to butt out and quit supporting the Democrats’ talking points but no - one is that foolish. Ryan as a potential candidate could be the respondent of some very uncomfortable questions as to his attitude towards the Pope Francis’s agenda.

RYAN  AND THE GOP FROM HERE ON

Paul Ryan will be front and central in this campaign as he has enunciated in clear detail what the position of the Republican Party is on “inequality”, the very topic that the Democrats wanted to fight this election on. The dynamic has changed. Whether or not this wins him the Republican nomination he so desperately craves is moot. He is not out of it. His intellect, honesty and his right wing philosophy is where the base is at. Maybe the Koch brothers will back him. His budget has been attacked as being the Koch Budget and he is certainly the pick of Sheldon’s “crazies”. However, he is unlikely to be the Establishment’s choice.

At the end of the day Ryan and the Republicans are going to have to learn as individuals and as a Party,  to, in the words of Greg Campbell’s Rhinestone Cowboy:

“There will be a load of compromisin’

               On the road to my horizon…”

               

Otherwise all the money in the world and all the voter suppression will not see a GOP appearance at a “Star - spangled rodeo”. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Democrats are already on the media waves and internet making hay of  “The Ryanstone Cowboy’s” budget. The latter has increased the number of small donors dramatically in the last few days.

This mid term election is going to be an ugly affair. The Republicans, their Plutocrats and their unelected media and institutional leaders are going to throw every conceivable thing at it including the gold kitchen sink with its diamond taps. Voter suppression is a top Republican priority, now, in 19 states. They would like to demolish the Democrats while the GOP are still ostensibly a unified Party. If they don’t the Party must finally split and the Democrat philosophy will become as enshrined as much as FDR’s Great Society did. 

The nightmare of 8 years of Hillary and Democratic Congressional majorities is enough to spur the GOP into to trying anything - even not stopping “The Ryanstone Cowboy” from reintroducing his budget.

WHY THE GOP IN 2014? - IT’S THE PLUTOCRATS, OBAMACARE, AND VOTER SUPPRESSION - STUPID!

What has changed in American Politics since Jay H. Ell blogged and blogged that Obama could not loose the 2012 election? This he argued because the GOP had no alternate policies, they were the unashamed party of the rich and  they had offended or had no attractive policy to all  the key swing demographics - the youth, the Hispanics, the African Americans, the Women and the LBGT’s. Well nothing has changed in the GOP narrative in18 months to persuade those demographics to find the GOP more acceptable. Also the internecine split between, whom Sheldon Adelson affectionately calls, the “Crazies” and the party establishment is no nearer resolution than it was in 2012. 

Notwithstanding those facts the accepted wisdom of all the pundits is that not only are the Democrats not going to take back the House they are going to lose the Senate.  Even the Democratic Party believe so. Why, as my three year old grandson might ask? The short answer is money, the spin on Obamacare and voter repression. This response is just not going to satisfy my grandson and he will simply rejoin with yet another, Why? 

So Why?

FIRSTLY: GOP STRATEGY- ATTACK OBAMA AND HIS CARE

The GOP has still not articulated an alternate coherent policy on anything let alone health care so they have elected to go with attacking  Obama and his Obamacare. And they are serious. (Blogs: 2014 Agendas: Income Inequality = Obama and Obamacare = GOP; 1/9/13 and Obama and the Lynch Mob; 2/27/14). The major legislative initiative in the Republican controlled House of  Representatives is to repeal Obamacare, the Affordable Health Care Act, (AHCA), which has now been brought to the floor 51 times. The GOP has continued on and on even though a poll a few months ago only 17% of the electorate rated Obamacare a key issue. Further, the poll numbers on acceptability of the AHCA have been creeping up and up and now are at about 50% as are Obama’s acceptability figures which are now at 46% after languishing in the 30%’s for months.

 The GOP were helped by a disastrous start to the website of the AHCA. In spite of that, the recruitment to Obamacare has been a major success. Over 7 million have signed on to the program, 3 million children under 26 on their parents programs and nearly 5 million have taken the opportunity to enlist in an expanded Medicaid. So of the 40,000,000 Americans who did not have insurance 1 year ago conservatively 15,000,000 now have got it. This even though 25 of the Governors of the Republican States refused to enroll any of their newly eligible Medicaid citizens into the program and to set up State websites to enroll those who were eligible for Obamacare.

So on its face the Republicans should have egg on their faces so why is this not so and why are even the Democrats wilting under the Obama and Obamacare onslaught? This rather than going to those States where the Republicans are depriving their citizens of healthcare and attacking them for their dog in the manger attitude.

SECONDLY: THE SUPREME COURT CREATED PLUTOCRATS

The Supreme Court in their monumental decision on Citizen’s United versus the Federal Electoral Commission threw away the US Constitution’s objective of creating a life of equality and justice for all. In this landmark case, in 2010, they interpreted the First Amendment as equating Freedom of Speech with money. They then interpreted that moneyed corporations had the same rights as individuals. This meant that there need be no limits that individuals and corporations could donate to entities such as Political Action Committees. This flew in teeth of precedents and bipartisan Congress legislation, (which is in of itself is a relic only found in the Smithsonian Museum). The legislation was entitled the McCain - Feingold Law. The latter was designed to limit the enormous amounts of money expended in political campaigns. A key provision of the act was an attempt to control the unlimited spending by Political Action Committees, (PACS), on electoral issues. And what better way is there for the PACS to spend this money then on attacking Obama and his Care.

(The Supreme Court’s on April 2nd has, in addition upheld the Republican Party contention that should be no limits to the number of candidates an individual can donate directly to. While the sum of money has not changed for any one candidate as the individual can now donate to every candidate thereby increasing the fixed total amount previously from about $123,000 per election cycle to 3.5 million. This could add literally hundreds of millions into the system. Once again the rationale for the 5 - 4 majority of the Robert’s Court was to equate money with the Freedom of Speech.

 ( The Supreme Court is in addition deciding whether Corporations are entitled to deprive third parties of their rights, (Blog: The Supreme Court, Contraception, The Constitution and Society; 3/28/14). 

THIRDLY: THE BILLIONAIRE PLUTOCRATS ARE THUS FINALLY IN FULL CONTROL.

The 2012 election saw the beginnings of the 2010 Supreme Court, Citizens United, decision impact on the electoral process. However, it was not all in full swing. The demographics were the over riding factor, so Obama could not lose as Jay H. Ell blogged. In 2014 the billionaires are better organized and coordinated to spend more and more to thwart the agendas of the groups other than the white males. This money is being used to influence the congressional elections. 

Already Congress’s legislation is all but controlled by big money and corporations. (Blog: The Moneyed in Politics - The Sixth Estate and their lobbyists; 2/20/14).

Thus 0.1% of the US population control legislation and have now have limitless money to influence which representatives are elected to introduce that legislation. If the Hobby Lobby decision goes the way it is expected then the plutocrats and their corporations will be also empowered to strip large groups of their rights under existing legislation. (The Supreme Court, Contraception, The Constitution and Sanity; 3/28/14).

THE KOCH PLUTOCRATS TAKE OVER

So with Citizen’s United in full swing the Koch Brothers Political Action Committee, (PAC), has already poured nearly a half a billion dollars into the 2014 mid term elections and there are 9 months to go. In the past three months the Koch brothers have changed the pollsters forecasts of the US Senate elections. Nate Silver the foremost independant pollster has predicted a 60% of chance of the Republicans taking over the Senate.

To give one some idea of the bombardment of the media waves this represents, according to Reverend Al Sharpton, the Koch Brothers have already run 17,000 ads in this campaign as compared to a combined total of 2,100 by the Republican Party.  National Public Radio has broadcast that the Kochs’ PAC has purchased more ads than all the other PACs, Political Parties, Interest Groups and Unions put together. These ads are mainly in the 12 Senate Races that the Republicans have the best chance of taking and they only need to win 6 of these to take control of the Senate. 

Guess what the major content of the ads are? You guest right - attacks on Obamacare.  So it is understandable that at this stage of the game that the Republican candidates will have more name recognition than their opponents and that perceptions of Obamacare will suck. Several of the ads on Obamacare, when fact checked, have been found to be wrong but so what. The reason, that for the moment, the Obama smear ads have stuck is that at least 70 - 80% of people are already insured. The ads are aimed at the insured stating that Obamacare threatens their care as it is going to change the way medicine works!  Where they are right is that with the American patch work of health care insurance companies change programs, drop doctors add or subtract services and the like as a matter of course. To further complicate the situation an employer may get a better deal and go to another carrier with different doctors..… Finally, the Kochs have found someone to blame for this mess - Obamacare!

Now the Kochs are not taking over the country totally out of loyalty to the flag as their massive business interests  are protected by the present basis of wealth distribution and tax code malfunction. Sad to say that they only need a percent or two of their money to “buy” the country which is going cheap.

SHELDON ADELSON - PLUTOCRAT DELUXE

This colorful casino mogul between him and his good lady are deciding who to anoint, with at least a $100,000,000, for their Presidential campaign. So the Supreme Court has not only opened the way to purchase Congress but also the Presidency. There is one qualification, however, that the Adelsons have, before dishing out this chump change. Adelson does want to back one of the Republican “crazies”. He has enough experience doing that in the last election by backing Gingrich and Romney. His qualification put off, at least,  Perry, Ryan, Paul, Cruz, Santorum, Huckabee, Jindal and a few other “crazies” from attending the mundane Jewish Republican Congress in Vegas. However, Christie, Jed Bush, Walker and Kakish, all relatively sane apparently, showed up to what has now been labelled, Sheldon’s Primary.

While Sheldon’s support of Israel is near and dear to his heart, he is more than aware that he will get that from any candidate so cynics say that he is really looking for a candidate that will support an online gambling ban. He is passionately against online gambling Jay H. Ell is sure for the most altruistic of reasons.

So the Presidency is now officially up for sale with the Supreme Court blessing to go ahead and spend limitless money on the choice. 

FOURTHLY; VOTER SUPPRESSION.

Now none of this money can change the demographics of the voters. But once again Robert’s Supreme Court has been advantageous to the Republicans. In 2013 they gutted the central provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act which was passed at the height of the Civil Right’s Movement. The latter legislation was enacted to ensure voting rights for all voters. It is interesting to note that this was another of the Congress’s bipartisan rarities never having been challenged for decades. The ostensible reason for the Court’s decision was that the 1965 Act was not consistent with present day realities. Voter suppression moves had started prior to this ruling but snowballed following its publication.

There are 9 states that are in the process of making it more difficult to vote and several to follow. It is no secret that those hardest hit will be where the demographics favor the Democrats. The steps taken include the requirement of, difficult to obtain, identity documents, the reduction of opportunities to register for voting, decreasing voting days and voting hours, fewer voting stations, greater difficulties to complete absentee or provisional ballots. 

FIFTHLY: GERRYMANDERING VOTER DISTRICTS.

The above entails drawing up districts more favorable to your Party winning more seats in the House of Representatives. This has been done by both Parties in the past but as fate would have it is favoring the Republicans at this moment in time.

SIXTHLY: THE ELECTION TECHNICALS

Midterm elections traditionally do not favor the Party of the President, Even more so when the President is in his second term. As pundits point out, in every piece, of the 12 Senate seats up for election 7 are traditional “red” States and 5 are swing states leaning to “red”. So what hope have the Democrats really got?

So that is why!

THE DEMS AND OBAMA AND OBAMACARE

The Democrats are “freaking out” at this turn of events and even Obama sent an e -mail  saying that he would get straight to the point that the Democrats are in danger of loosing the Senate. But in a way the Dems are feeding off the Republican Plutocracy making the Koch Brothers the bogeymen by warning the base to mobilize or the Koch brothers will control both houses. They are doing what they have done again and again building up a grassroots organization with small donations.  These are the people that will bring the voters to the polls. 

They also must not be tentative about supporting Obama and ObamaCare. It is a success and Obama has got his mojo back. (Blog: Obama bounces back with a bang; 1/29/14). It is time for the Dems to go on the attack. Bill Clinton reckons the Dems must run with Obamacare. The Dems must also realize that the insurance registration turnout is a vote in confidence in Obama himself.

Jay H. Ell has long been blogging that Obamacare was going to come back and bite the Republicans. ( Blogs: Obamacare and Obamascare Explained; 9/28/13 and Obamacare is Dead. So is Obama and Liberalism; 12/22/13). There were those including Boehner who mocked at the initial sign ups - they couldn’t fill a College Football Stadium. The GOP, to a man, forecast disaster and now there are roughly 15,000,000 people who never had insurance that have it. This with 25 Republican Governors neither setting up websites nor enrolling their citizens on the Medicaid they were entitled too. 

So Obamacare is here to stay and the Republicans are running on nothing. As the months unfold towards the election there are going to be more word of mouth stories of the positivity of Obamcare. The Republicans cannot give up smearing it as it their only game in town. Their story is now that the “books were cooked”. Paul Ryan has once again called for its repeal in the 2104 Republican Budget Proposal.  

Whatever the outcome of this election there is very little doubt that American Democracy is being put to its stiffest test for some time. Never before have the outcome of elections been so openly and blatantly subject to the whims of a few who have so much. If money does triumph they may as well change the Constitution to one dollar one vote. Or one can just believe Ted Cruz when he says that the single biggest lie in American politics is that the Republicans are the party of the rich.

Jay H. Ell is not nearly as pessimistic about the outcome of the elections as is Nate Silver and all the pundits. This scenario still has to play out and it has 9 months to go. Having said that, Obamacare is not yet over all its hurdles. It faces hosts of court challenges and every glitch and every patient complaint will be seized upon by a political party desperate for an issue to run on.