Monday, July 24, 2023

WHY BIDEN 2024?




It is trite to argue that the outcome of the 2024 Presidential elections will have a pivotal effect on the future both in the world and the USA. However explaining why the next President of the United States should be Joseph H. Biden, when his approval rating is in the low forty percentage range, appears to be an uphill task. This especially as Trump one way or another sucks up all the oxygen in the room, to the extent that even his “GOP” rivals for nomination cannot get in a word in edgeways.


 To the frustration of even Biden’s own supporters he has not started campaigning in earnest for 2024. He raked in a record 72 million dollars, mainly small contributions, in the first quarter since announcing, only spending one million of it. That is the way Biden works. He beat Trump from his basement in 2020 and allowed him to run against himself. The desperate fourty- fifth President, leading the pack of the transformed Republican Party, is obliging in spades. 


However if Biden is judged by his actions, he fits the bill in this period of history. A situation that he describes as an “inflexion” point. Just looking at his achievements he should be a “shoo In” but the outcome is still in the balance with Biden ahead by a few points against the likely “GOP” contender, Donald J. Trump.


Biden is contending with a populist direction that so many countries are experiencing and the perception of the body politic is that he represents the “same old same old” stale politics that they want to get rid of. 


Jay H. Ell will outline Biden's modus operandi both within America and the world stage where he believes you don’t shout from the roof tops that you are a star and remain low key so as to keep all avenues open for negotiation and compromise for whatever follows. 


WHAT IF BIDEN DIDN’T STAND?


Just consider for one moment if Biden signified that he was standing down. The latter fear was verbalized at an international press conference following the historic unified NATO conference that had, orchestrated by him, just admitted Finland, accepted Sweden as a member and made it quite clear that Ukraine would join after the war. Biden reassured the anxious Finnish press member that he would be around and the USA’s support of the organization that he had reshaped  was not in question, On the home front, had he announced his retirement,  he would have been a “lame duck” unable to fully administer his landmark legislation on, for example, infrastructure, welfare and chip making industry, the results of which will begin to hit in in 2024 with a vengeance.. 


WHY HE SHOULDN’T RUN


For starters let us examine why Biden, besides his age, does not project the image, of being an alpha male President or at least a towering presidential figure. His rapid soft spoken speech and his tendency to give long circuitous replies to questions, and not the well rehearsed “one liners,” is not what is customarily witnessed.. None of this is helped by his speech sometimes appearing slurred, which has been professionally put down to an earlier stutter speech defect. He also makes bloopers which he has done since time immemorial. The latter has resulted in the extreme right smearing him as being demented. 


Some have claimed that having Kamilla Harris on his ticket is “unhelpful” and that the campaign will be largely directed against her. Those who maintain this narrative are ignoring the large African American support Biden enjoys.  


However the broad electorate do not want a rematch between him and Trump. They needn’t have it especially from the Democratic side where the bench runs deep with younger and more “Presidential” like candidates. Just think of Governors Newsom and Whitmer to name two. So why Biden and why is he, despite the negatives, still the part? 


WHY BIDEN SHOULD RUN?


Remember last time around he beat Trump relatively narrowly in the swing states because enough anti Trump Republicans and former Democrats switched to him. It was a choice between him and Trump. This time round Trump or a clone will be in a weaker position in those seven swing states as the interim elections have indicated. In addition if Trump is not the nominee he will be the “spoiler” and run as a third candidate. Or if not his faithful would not vote for anyone else and just “stand down”.


While Trump’s legal woes have to date consolidated his base support and financial contributions they cannot be having a positive effect on the independent voter.


BIDEN’S PREVIOUS POLITICAL EXPERIENCE GIVES A CLUE AS TO HOW AND WHY HE PROJECTS HIS “UNPRESIDENTIAL” IMAGE.


There should be an "academy" for would be CEOS of company USA. Learning on the job which is a humongous undertaking is not for amateurs who still include Donald J. Trump. If one could find fault with Obama’s terms was that he was inexperienced. Biden has spent a life time in the "academy". First he served in the Senate for 36 years on multiple committees chairing a number including Justice and Foreign Relations. Then he was Vice President for eight years.


2020 was Biden’s third try as a Presidential candidate, really failing dismally in 1968 and 2008. It was in the latter election that Obama chose him as his running mate, recognizing, from close up what many hadn’t - the wide range of experience knowledge and skills that Biden had exhibited in the Senate. The Forty Forth Commander in Chief used Biden extensively especially in foreign policy adding further international know how and contacts to his resume. He has a relationship with virtually every nations' leaders. 


There is no way that Biden could have achieved as much across the aisle and risen to the heights of leadership within his own party if he had shouted his mouth off like a Ted Cruz. He is and was universally liked and respected amongst his former colleagues. Lindsey Graham as recently as 2021 privately confessed that Joe Biden was the best person to lead the USA. Graham had seen previously on tape, that went viral years ago, maintaining that no - one could say a bad word about his former Senate colleague. 


So Biden does his maneuvering and politicking behind the scenes. Take two examples in his Presidency. The debt raising crisis and budget negotiations with Speaker Kevin McCarthy. He publicly acknowledged that McCarthy was in a difficult position and was meeting in good faith. The end result was an incredibly favorable outcome which the right wing of the “GOP” voted against. There was no crowing and shouting from the rooftops that he pulled one over that “son of a bitch”. (Incidentally for those wondering why culture wars have been front and center of the “GOP” thrust and not illegal immigration the answer is that the Biden Administration have it at the lowest number for a long while).


Then there was his continued assurance that Turkey would drop its objection to Sweden joining NATO. Lo and behold it transpired  in what has to have been the most skillful diplomacy and horse trading. Turkey is going to be allowed to buy US made F16s while Sweden will support Turkey’s application to the European Union. Biden has not shared any of his background “diplomacy”. 


Added to all this is his incredible legislative record with the slenderest of majorities. Indeed some of it being bipartisan. This led Majorie Taylor Greene to attack him by claiming that he follows FDR’s “New Deal” and Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” which introduced Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and now Biden continues the destruction with “Bidenomics”. Biden has used this speech in a rare election advert!


Finally the incumbent’s party has a massive advantage in that they don’t have to spend or run a divisive Primary as being witnessed in the “GOP”. Biden is synchronizing his re election with the Democratic Party effort so as to make his campaign universal in every competed seat. At the moment Trump may have the base of his party but that isn’t nearly enough to win an election. Trump is out on his own not even contemplating attending the Primary debates.


AT THE END OF THE DAY


Biden’s experience and skill set may make him the most qualified President since FDR and LBJ but he is not the alpha male type nor has he the oratorial skills of an Obama, Clinton or a Reagan. 


 Whoever the candidates are in 2024 how on earth can the GOP candidate win defending unbridled gun procession and abortion abolition?


In 2024 “Bidenomics” will be hitting the country in all states, blue and red. Biden has already called out “GOP” Congress members, who voted against his legislation, who are now touting the benefits to their electorate as if it was as a result of their efforts. 


In an ideal world Biden could go back to Delaware and enjoy his grandchildren but this is far from an ideal world.


 


Thursday, July 6, 2023

WILL THE ROBERTS COURT BE HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT?

 




Chief Justice John Roberts has just completed his eighteenth year as the leader of the Supreme Court. The jurist has a keen sense of history and is more than mindful that he is in a unique position to  shape the future of the country. He is also acutely aware that The Supreme Court is the unelected institution of the three pillars of Government and its legitimacy to a large extent is dependent on how the American citizenry respect and approve of its actions. It is painfully obvious that the Robert’s court has currently scant acceptance from the American public with the lowest approval rate in history. A Quinnipiac poll taken prior to the release of the most recent highly contentious decisions showed a 29 percent approval rating.  When a President running for re election can feel politically comfortable in calling this Court “Not Normal” Roberts should be taking note, which in fact he is.


So it is obvious why Roberts, after eighteen years as Chief Justice, has taken the unprecedented action of including in the body of one the Court’s most recent controversial decisions the current perception of the court in the public domain. He pleads for all concerned not to question the integrity of the Court as he argues that it “could be harmful to the country”.  In addition it would be instructive for Robert’s to reflect why the seventeen year Warren Court was and is still positively regarded while his court, after18 years, is making fruitless appeals for validation. 


Before plunging into the retrogressive decisions there are two which have engendered positivity from a wide spectrum of opinion, especially  those who believe that nothing good can emerge from the Roberts Court. Roberts, who has led to the undoing of much of the Civil Rights Voting Act, opposed the State of Missouri who had created only one constituency where African Americans, who represent 27 percent of the voters, were in the majority. The other “good” news was that the Court denied the North Carolina legislature’s contention that they, not the State Courts, had the final say on election results. The unbridled legislative power being the Trump theory in one of his abortive attempts to overthrow the 2020 election


THE WARREN AND ROBERTS COURTS


The Warren Court stands out as a beacon in heralding equality and relegating legal segregation to the dustbin of history. The fact that two African Americans are belting it out in the Roberts Court is in no small measure a result of what the Warren Court was able to achieve. Roberts appears to have conflicting agendas. He has an ideological bent which is plainly evident to every and any observer whether they applaud it or oppose it. Warren, a former Republican Governor, had a far more open vision and wasn’t hamstrung by any label. Nor was Warren handicapped by a process whereby three judges on his court, who when the president nominated them, assured his constituents as to how they would rule from the bench. Neither does the fact that the nomination of at least one Justice pick was literally “robbed” from Obama by the then GOP controlled Senate, help validating Roberts’s craving for legitimacy. His  apparent non action of the unethical behavior of some of the members of his court further sours public support. 


IT COMES DOWN TO THE ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT IN RELATION TO SOCIETY


Surely the role of the Supreme Court, in interpreting The Constitution, should reflect the evolution of societal values, codify them and only to a certain extent lead. The Warren Court in their landmark school segregation decision claimed that “separate but equal" was inherently unequal on the basis of the reality situation, thereby setting the stage for the continuation of the civil rights struggle which was taking place in society. The Warren Court emphasized the right to privacy when States attempted to ban contraception, (privacy was also the constitutional basis for the right to abortion up to twenty three weeks in the Roe v Wade decision). They also blocked attempts to hinder the Voting Rights Acts. 


In short the court was in sync with society on the general desire to move away from discrimination.


WHERE IS SOCIETY IN RELATION TO THE ROBERTS COURT?


While there is little doubt that while the body politic, as represented by blue and red state legislatures is at loggerheads there is a remarkable consensus on most of the values that the Court issued societal decisions. Chief Justice Roberts in an effort to stamp his imprimatur on the legacy of the court authored all the underlying opinions except the abolishing of the right to abortion. 


 Roberts, himself, voted against the total nullification of the fifty year old decision Roe v Wade which allowed abortion up to twenty three weeks under the “privacy” provision of the constitution and had been ratified again and again. He was not “blameless” however in the outcome. He merely did not want to go as far as the rest of the Conservative Court. He saw a gradual solution to the “problem” and wanted to decrease the time where abortion would be allowed to 13 weeks, which was what the plaintiffs had asked for. This decision was in the teeth of societal opinion, polls consistently showing sixty percent or more opposed to it. A Pew study showed that twice as many women, “strongly disapproved"  the outcome as compared to men. After all the country is in a"MeToo" world with more and more control and equity being demanded and being received by women. 


Without a doubt the abortion decision was the most impactful of the Roberts Court’s reign. Chief Justice Roberts in an address  stated that it was not the issue per se rather, he confided, “The hardest decision I had to make was whether to erect fences and barricades around the Supreme Court. I had no choice but to go ahead and do it”. That decision was made in the wake of protests that followed the leak of Justice Alito’s draft opinion overturning Roe. With regard to the latter there was deep dissatisfaction at the process the Chief Justice utilized in investigating the leak of the outcome, which many alleged may have been by the author of the decision, Justice Alito.  


In June 2022 the Roberts Court ruled, in a 6 - 3 decision, that more people could legally carry guns on the streets of the nation’s largest cities. This decision undid a trove of State laws which had placed various restrictions on the wholesale freedom to “carry” weapons. Society in the wake of the increasing epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings, in a Fox poll, reflected their attitudes towards this interpretation of the Second Amendment. The poll indicated that 87 percent of those surveyed wanted at least some or other control of gun possession and certainly not a liberalization of existing law. The Court’s decision took no account of the random havoc that is  being wrought unhindered by their interpretation of the Second Amendment.


Then the Court considered a case impinging on LGBT rights. Their ill thought out resolution could open the door to a potential wholesale denial of rights and services to the LGBT community. 

The Supreme Court even accepting to hear this case raised legal eyebrows as the complainant had no "standing". Normally a complainant has to have "injury in fact to their legal interests". This case raised a hypothetical question as to whether a web designer, who was going to create sites for weddings claimed, for religious reasons, that she would want to refuse to design a website for non heterosexual unions. The case was further muddied by the fact that the hypothetical question had allegedly been asked by what turned out to be a married heterosexual male who categorically denied ever contacting the plaintiff. The legal argument here was that the future website designer was entitled to her First Amendment Rights to free expression and freedom of religion and therefore could refuse to serve the non heterosexual couple. 


A Gallup poll of January this year indicated a 71 percent acceptance rate of same gender marriage unions which in fact to date has been the position of the Court. However, to Jay H. Ell, a lay person, it appears obvious that anyone, might be entitled to express an opinion such as "races should not mix" and in the event of their opening a restaurant they might not want to serve those of color for religious reasons.


Another decision in a case again where the plaintiffs had no standing” was the allocation of funds by President Biden - up to 20,000 dollars of their student debt for those earning less than 75, 000 dollars a year and 10,000 for those earning up to 125, 000 a year. The Court’s decision in effect was a refutation of Executive Power in what the legal fraternity, regardless of their position, maintained was a reasonable interpretation of the “Heroes Act”. Biden’s rationale, besides the crippling effect, that educational costs impose in the USA, was the impact of the Covid pandemic. 


Notwithstanding the fact that those without College debts would have scant sympathy for this cause, 62 percent of those surveyed by another poll sponsored by Fox News were “broadly in favor” of debt relief programs. 


In the final decision of the Court, society, according to a Pew poll, was evenly split on whether to allow race to be a consideration in College Admission. This litigation is a hardy perennial in Supreme Court hearings and precedent after precedent, taking into account amicus briefs of societal leaders from all walks of life, has resulted in it remaining untouched. The supporting arguments included the importance of “leveling the playing fields” for the African American sector, whose circumstances generally, including school education, have been far poorer than the other sectors in the community. The Court ruled in favor of axing Affirmative Action.


It was in the Affirmative Action litigation that Chief Justice Roberts chided the Justices  who impugned the decision making process of their colleagues. In addition he made his general appeal to the body politic to accept the Supreme Court decisions in good faith. Justices Ketanje Brown Jackson and Clarence Thomas, both African Americans in written opinions had disagreed with one another in the sharpest possible language. In dissenting Chief Justice Roberts’s argument, Justice Jackson Brown caustically pointed out that the Roberts decision made an exception for the military, allowing Affirmative  Action, to continue there. She maintained that “it was alright for the bunker but not for the board”. Justice Sotomayor in her detailed dissent claimed that The Court finding was not constitutional.


AT THE END OF THE DAY


It is a reasonable assessment that as opposed to reflecting, leading and codifying current societal values the Roberts Court is negating them. In so doing they are often reversing long standing  precedents. The latter in spite of the last three Trump appointees, during their nomination processes, repeatedly claimed that they had the utmost respect for precedent. It is exceedingly unlikely that their decisions will ultimately change the direction society is headed. 


Chief Justice Roberts has failed to address the incidences of blatant ethical misconduct of members of his Court which would have lead to serious enquiries in any other court below the Supreme Court. This  latter fact is thought by some commentators to have been the main factor that contributed most to their abysmal poll numbers.


Chief Justice Roberts might find that his court will not have any positive historical significance. Who remembers his predecessor, the nineteen year Rehnquist Court? Most recalled are its decisions to stop a Florida State Presidential recount ordered by the Florida’s Supreme Court. In fairness many of the societal issues reversed by the Roberts Court were reaffirmed by the Rehnquist Court and the latter invalidated laws against sodomy that were still present in certain Southern States.


Chief Justice Roberts's plea for no internal dissent in The Court has fallen on deaf ears as the minority three female members have continued to call out the decision making of The Court. Chief Justice Roberts can do nothing about the criticism leveled. Like Justices Thomas and Alito they are life appointees.