Kavanaugh on the separation of Church & State

In case you needed any more proof that Trump SC pick Kavanaugh is WAY outside the historical mainstream throughout at least the entirety of the 20th century.... 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2018/07/12/scotus-pick-brett-kavanaugh-church-state-separation-is-based-on-bad-history/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=BRSS&utm_campaign=Nonreligious&utm_content=361 

 

​ 

Lanny Davis on "impeachable offense" ?

Have to say this is a non-story. The substance Lanny Davis is referring to is more than a year old-news, and an offense is impeachable, almost by definition, if and only if a majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate think it is. And, my friends, until BOTH houses are flipped to Democratic, and maybe not even then, THAT IS NOT HAPPENING. Resistance must take other tacks. One of those tacks, of course, being doing EVERYTHING legal we can to make sure that Democratic control of both houses of Congress is restored as soon as possible. THIS is the fight of our lives.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cohen-lawyer-says-trump-may-have-committed-impeachable-offense

Andrew Napolitano is right (for once)

I don't usually agree with Fox News legal affairs commentator Andrew Napolitano (yeah, the one who was going to become one of Trump's lawyers until it turned out he had a conflict). But his testimony against the Corker/Kaine AUMF* proposal was absolutely spot on. (Bernie Sanders and our Sen. Merkley agree). He points out that open ended AUMFs are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, since the Constitution cannot be clearer that the power to wage war reposes in the Congress, not the president. In fact, his point that the most important principle in the Constitution isn't free speech or "liberty," but Separation of Powers, is also right. As he said, many illiberal governments have paper constitutions that guarantee all kinds of rights, but it's the structure of government that prevents the concentration of too much power in the hands of one man or faction that protects us from tyranny, across the generations, not nice words in a piece of paper. And he's also right, and makes a great point, that ceding the war powers to the president is not only a terrible precedent, it amounts to "amending the Constitution by [illicit] consent."

** Authorization for the Use of Military Force. And yes, the same Kaine who would have been vice president had HRC won, so this isn't a partisan issue. This bill, which would make it necessary to override a veto to stop an executive-originated war, is beyond terrible.

 

​ 

Looming generational threat from Trump's Supreme Court pick

Those of us who do not want to see an interventionist Supreme Court with a locked in majority of Far Right Federalist Society justices who are completely at odds with the public policy views of most Americans are in a very tough situation with the impending appointment of Brett Kavanaugh, who fits this mold in spades. I fear that the only viable solution, assuming eventual return of progressive political forces to power, is to eventually increase the number of justices, but that, unfortunately, is also a steep political climb, opposed by even most Democrats. But we can't just accept defeat. Appointments of relatively young people to the Supreme Court can change the face of American public policy for DECADES, and this latest pick clearly and unambiguously, on every issue, runs counter to the collective will of the American people, as demonstrated from repeated and consistent polling.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Call 202-224-3121. Ask for Susan Collins' office, or Lisa Murkowski's, or your own senators', or any senator's. Every public statement is better than silence.

• Tell them Brett Kavanaugh has STATED and DOCUMENTED views which are not legal but political, judicial interventionist doctrines, and which run contrary to the wishes of a significant majority of Americans. Among them: Wants to rescind Americans' reproductive rights, specifically to overturn Roe v. Wade.
• Wants to disable the right to health care which passed Congress and which even this Congress could not repeal, through judicial fiat
• Wants to disable protections for our environment
• Wants to cripple workers' organizing rights and workplace safety, again through judicial fiat
• Wants to use judicial intervention to cripple sensible financial regulation, which could prevent another financial crisis (has called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unconstitutional, thus rendering him ineligible to rule on cases involving it, but there's every indication he would anyway)
• Is on record saying that criminal prosecution, and even INVESTIGATION, of a sitting president, should be prevented, a clear conflict of interest, having been appointed by a president who is facing encroaching legal threat
• Will almost certainly vote to uphold gerrymandering and voter suppression
• Is hostile to LGBTQ equality
• Is hostile to due process for Asylum seekers (a treaty obligation of the United States, but no matter to them)

WE MUST DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO GET TO 51 votes AGAINST BRETT KAVANAUGH for the Supreme Court.

Brett Kavanaugh is the exactly SECOND Supreme Court nominee in US history, of a president not elected by the majority of the popular vote, proposed for approval by a Senate not elected by a majority of the national voting electorate. (The first was Trump's FIRST pick, Gorsuch, who took a seat stolen by the Republicans in the Senate in a brazen act of destruction of the unwritten rules that have preserved some degree of balance over much of the 20th and 21st centuries). We have no sense at all in America of the virtue of coalitions. When a president barely wins, ESPECIALLY when he takes office without a popular vote mandate, he has a MORAL duty to cooperate with the opposition, but in recent years, it's been SCORCHED EARTH on their side, and Obama, who tried to be accommodating, was just burned. To my mind, this affords at least a good deal of justification for extraordinary activism to try to defeat their judicial picks. A great deal is at stake, and we have every right, indeed every obligation, to FIGHT BACK.
Thank you.

​ 

Just amazing

It is nothing short of amazing that clown show barker Rudy G. is tacitly admitting that there is an impeachment case to be made against the Mob Boss Prez he works for, and that they're doing everything they can -- not to defend him on the merits, but to put procedural roadblocks in the way of the investigation, and to sway public opinion -- so that, for purely political reasons, even a Democratic Congress will be reluctant to impeach. And this when essentially no Democratic leadership voices are even suggesting that impeachment is on the agenda. 

Just amazing. 

Meanwhile, the most important issue before us... the fact that we have been, and continue to be the victim of a successful cyber warfare attack by Russia, in a coordinated effort to undermine western liberal democracy (which they don't even deny, except on their own clown car media)... is going mostly unaddressed by politicians of either party. One can hope that the counterintelligence forces continue to do their jobs to defend our country against these attacks even with an unwitting Kremlin agent in charge of the executive branch. If the Democratic leadership had any sense, they would make "STOP Russian Cyber attacks on the United States" and "Prevent Interference in our Elections" major election issues in both '18 and '20.

{link}

 

Progressive Change in the Democratic Party

As someone who's very happy to see Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez win the primary in Queens/Bronx against an "establishment" Democrat, I want to be very, very clear. I regard her win as a bellwether, not some kind of political earthquake or revolution. It is not the Progressive hope or intention to divide the Democratic Party. Just the opposite. We hope to infuse the party with new enthusiasm, new purpose, and new direction. We hope to spur the leadership of the party to think big, go bold, and realize that what will win in '18 and '20 is not business as usual but embracing the VERY POPULAR progressive agenda of the younger, more connected people coming from the organizing and grassroots of the party. And yes, to a great extent, that means the people who got behind and were energized by Bernie Sanders in 2016. It's a new day. Our party needs to stand for positive change, not just "NOT TRUMP," and we need to galvanize the energy of younger voters and give Independents, tired of business as usual in Washington from both parties, a real reason to vote Democratic in '18, '20, and beyond.

 

​ 

Got an e mail from Barack Obama

I just got a fundraising email from Barack Obama, requesting money for OFA's 2018 election effort. Well and good. I'm glad to see Obama stepping forward to stand for Democrats, and I support all efforts to ensure that Democratic candidates win at all levels. But the email was pretty much devoid of specifics. Democrats want assurance from their leadership that the party will actually stand for specific actions and policies to counter Trump's disastrous right wing agenda. Just being not Trump is NOT ENOUGH. I listen to people like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, who just won a primary in New York by a huge margin against an establishment Congressman who failed to take strong progressive stands. Ocasio Cortez espouses a fully fledged progressive agenda and is unafraid to talk about it in detail, just like her mentor Bernie Sanders did in 2016. THIS is the way to win the midterms, and I hope the more mainstream party leadership realizes that and soon.

Polls consistently show that Independents are and were turned off by politicians who hew to a centrist, "nondivisive", mealy-mouthed line. Many disaffected Democrats who voted for Trump actually told investigators that their choice was between Bernie Sanders and Trump... not because they necessarily agreed with the policies of either in detail, but because they were tired of being lied to, triangulated, manipulated. I really believe that a well designed campaign to convince many voters who are just beginning to realize they've been had by Trump, combined with the solid majority across the country who were never taken in by him, will spell a massive blue Tsunami. But the most likely way that WON'T happen is if a big segment of the "disaffecteds" perceive that the Democrats are just playing business as usual, and are afraid to go bold and think big.

Democrats need to forget about appealing to "centrists," and go back to their roots. Economic fairness. Bold policy initiatives: rein in Wall Street, build infrastructure massively, invest in new industries for a renewable energy future, conquer Climate Change with massive public investment, pay for college and vocational education, institute truly universal health care and retirement security. These policies, properly presented, are MASSIVELY POPULAR. And Democrats, better than Republicans, who care no more for debt and deficits than they do but are more willing to lie about it, should understand that the reason we aren't doing these things is NOT because we can't afford them. We have the World's reserve currency. Everyone needs OUR money. We aren't doing these things for one reason only: we don't have the political WILL to do them.

Sure would like to see Barack Obama make some version of this case to the American people. And now.

Ryan Grim's e mail blog

.... is worth reading.

  (LINK)

 

​ 

How Kennedy's retirement could spell doom for the rule of law and small l- liberal democracy in America.

Conflict of interest... a most unappetizing dish.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/please-read-this-through-hes-right

 

 

​ 

Fight Back, Fight Dirty

With the announced retirement of Kennedy, the OTHER horrible SCOTUS news today (not unexpected) is the Janus decision, sealing the 40 year long Right Wing legal campaign to eviscerate the power of organized labor by making required dues illegal for public employee unions. Time to fight back and fight dirty. As soon as Democrats have control of both houses, pack the damn court. To 13. It's NOT in the Constitution. First, make them eliminate the filibuster forever in order to get any Trump nominee on the court. (ANY nominee... THEY set this precedent, let them live with it). THEN, by simple majority vote, change the Supreme Court's make up to 13 justices. Look it up. This can be done by STATUTE. It does NOT require a Constitutional amendment or supermajority vote of either house.   

No Democrats must ever vote for a Trump nominee to the Supreme Court. EVER.

  Democrats in Congress have no real choice; the battle lines are drawn and THEY MADE THE RULES. Absolutely no Democratic vote for any Trump nominee to replace Kennedy. EVER. If Schumer had any guts at all, he'd say that RIGHT NOW.

Malcolm Nance: The Plot to Destroy Democracy

 • Just heard a long interview by John Aravosis and Cliff Schechter (Unpresidented Podcast, $), with MALCOLM NANCE, author of new book The Plot to Destroy Democracy. Nance is a counter intel expert and his book is scary shit. Our nation, and small-l small-d liberal democracy are in deep trouble. We must find common ground with all who will oppose the "Axis of Autocracy," as he calls it, because an all out, real-thing existential struggle with the forces of NeoFascism is already upon us. And what's really scary is the case he makes that Putin is "running" Trump like a "direct action asset". Remember, this guy isn't ex-KGB. He is the KGB, and he's running Russia pretty much the way Stalin ran the Soviet Union, except he understands information warfare and is waging it very, very successfully against US.

Wake up, fellow Americans. We got a fight on our hands, and close to 40% of our country has been brainwashed to be on the wrong side.

Bellwether Primary in the Democratic Congressional races

I hope "Establishment" Democrats, who are unwilling to embrace the spirit of progressive change that is sweeping the party and shaking it to its foundations, will take a lesson from the defeat of "machine" politician Joe Crowley, in Queens, NY today, by a young, female, nonwhite Sanders-supporting progressive candidate, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Crowley was supposedly in line to be the next Speaker, when the Democrats take the House, and assuming Pelosi steps down at some point. But now, I hope, there will be some recognition that there needs to be some serious re-thinking of what the Democratic Party stands for, and who should lead it. 

Musica lætitiæ comes medicina dolorum.  

What Trump is after

Posted on FB today by someone who I usually, but don't always, agree with. 

" I suspect that Trump was bailed out in 2006-2007 by Russians when he was going bankrupt. He owes them a lot. But in the process of all of that, he came to realize that Putin is the richest man in the world. He wants that for himself. He realizes that the way to do it is an authoritarian route. The Clintons only amassed about $150 million. Trump wants more. Indeed, if you look at his emoluments violations to date, he and his family members are up to at least $1 billion in benefit just in the first year.

 

That is what this is all about, IMO."

 

​I would like to say this is hyperbole. But I don't think it is. ​And I have seriously come to the conclusion that this administration has put our republic in the most threatened and precarious political position it has been in since 1861. And Vladimir Putin can hardly contain his glee. 

​ 

Nothing accomplished

Sure looks like Trump, the great deal maker, was played by Kim Jong Un. A meaningless "we'll keep talking" in exchange for a lot of prestige, and, now, it seems, a commitment to walk back military exercises. 

Look, I'm a believer in unilateral tension reduction. I've been saying for years (only half in jest) that we should just FedEx a signed peace treaty to Pyongyang, declaring the Korean War over and announcing that we have no intention of attacking or undermining the North Korean state, deplorable as it may be. It's clear that their main interest is survival of their regime, which is not really our issue to resolve. If the Korean people want to be rid of the Kim dynasty, they will have to do the long, hard, nonviolent resistance work that it will take, because there is no external military solution. Every thinking person knows that. 

But just handing Kim a big diplomatic victory in exchange for nothing is not helping, either. I give Trump pretty much no credit... he infused the crisis at least as much in the first year of his administration as he has now defused it, and where are we? Acceptance of a nuclear DPRK. We probably didn't really have much choice, but I do not see this as any kind of achievement. 

 

​​

Doing "What he's seen done"

So, Trump tells us Kim Jong Un's brutality is OK, because he's "doing what he's seen done." So if Admiral Dönitz had managed to hold on to power for a few months after Hitler's suicide and kept the concentration camps going, we'd have to just say, "Ooop! Mulligan! You were just doing what you'd seen done!"

This usurper-president (calling him what I really believe he is) is the most craven, disgusting piece of work ever to hold that office, and more and more I fear that what he is presiding over is the final dissolution of the American Republic.

 

​ 

Hayden: Attack on Intelligence

Reading Michael Hayden's Attack on Intelligence I am repeatedly reminded of just why I held this man in ... well, contempt is too strong a word, as someone who, despite (or because of ) a thoroughgoing military and historical education and piercing intelligence, managed to convince himself that waterboarding was justified and the wholesale violation of the Fourth Amendment without even notice to the American people was likewise justified by circumstances that followed 9/11. However, his case that the current attack on our body politic, partly internal and partly emanating from Russia, is an even more serious threat, is totally convincing and well supported by the evidence he cites.  

​ 

Commentary on a current affair

Norms, a even actual rules, dropping like flies. If forcing the DOJ to produce the Dep AG and FBI director to talk to Congresscreatures about an ongoing investigation weren't bad enough, they are exclusing any representatives of the opposing party. Even in the worst days of pre-Civil War and Reconstruction corrupt politics, there was at least a SHOW of bipartisanship and fair dealing. Now, it's raw-power Putinesque Fake Democracy all the way down. I think we're seeing what Jefferson was trembling about when he contemplated that "God is just, and his justice can't be deferred forever...." except it's karma, not God.

"What the Hell are They Thinking?" Dept.

Let's take it as a given that Bolton is simply a lunatic, whose rationality is worse than dubious. But Pompeo, albeit a Tea Party ideologue, at least seems, or seemed, to have at least some pragmatic political savvy. It is very hard to understand what he can possibly think will inure to his advantage if he manages to help Bolton drag us into a war with Iran. ANY rational person with even a modicum of knowledge of recent Middle East history and the status of the US in the geopolitical arena at present would be able to see that while that might be a good bluff, it can't possibly be a practical foreign policy. Indeed, all foreseeable outcomes would be strongly negative for US interests. As for Trump, I think nearly everyone now recognizes that he has no strong beliefs at all, only kneejerk responses and ingrained reactions. But he has shown time and again that he will jettison almost any course of action if he perceives that it's a threat to him, either politically or financially. And at some point even he's going to see that a massive, tremendously expensive, economically catastrophic war will be tremendously unpopular with most of the American population, and will be very, very bad for him and his political future. (Notwithstanding the distraction from the probes into his corruption and influence peddling, and even though it will have to overcome the usual "war fever" effect). I think it's more than obvious that one of the very last things most Americans want right now is a massive and very costly war.

........................................................ 

​ 

Democrats need to start REALLY fighting back

​​I completely agree with David Faris, author of It's Time to Fight Dirty: How Democrats Can Build a Lasting Majority in American Politics. More people every election vote for Democrats for House, Senate and the presidency, but the way our system is organized a president can be elected with as little as 25% of the vote, and the House can be majority Republican with only about 35-40% of the voters voting Republican. Moreover, with the Merrick Garland theft of the Supreme Court seat, the Republicans have made clear that they will respect no norms of American politics not absolutely guaranteed by law and the Constitution (and not even some of those). Therefore, we Democrats must use every legal means to ensure that our majority actually rules once we have the means to wield power to ensure that. This should include: DC and Puerto Rico statehood, not approving any justice a Republican president nominates (following their playbook), changing the terms of judges and justices and increasing the numbers of judges and justices at all levels including the Supreme Court to ensure that Democratic presidents can appoint their fair share in this generation; passing the National Popular Vote Compact in enough states to ensure that the winner of the popular vote always becomes president; outlawing all forms of gerrymandering; passing a comprehensive new 21st Century Voting Rights Act which will make voter suppression illegal and make sure every citizen has the right to vote... and more. The judicial changes are vital for one simple reason (among others) Citizens United.

Think about this. Even without splitting one or two of the biggest blue states to create more senate seats (he says California should be five or six states!), JUST by adding DC and Puerto Rico, George W. Bush and Donald Trump would never have become president. The National Popular Vote Compact would have ensured the same thing, all by itself. We do not have a real functioning democracy in this country. They, the perennially minority party, fight dirty. We don't even need to: just by taking purely legal actions to make sure we truly have majority rule insofar as the Constitution allows, we can ensure that we no longer have special interest oligarchy in this country for generations to come. I ask: WHAT THE HELL ARE WE WAITING FOR? How many minority, special interest dominated administrations and congresses must we put up with before we get mad enough to make our own party leaders take these perfectly possible actions!?