April 29, 2019--Biden Steps In It

Joe Biden for me is the Democrat most likely to be able to defeat Trump in 2020. Perhaps the only Democrat. 

His announcement Thursday began well with a three minute video posted on line where Biden, announcing his candidacy, powerfully and persuasively said that at stake in 2020 is a struggle for nothing less than the "soul of the nation." And by not-so-subtle implication demonstrated he is best positioned to take on Trump on that issue and win.

But later in the day, without prompting, he revealed he had called Anita Hill to express regret about the way the confirmation hearings he chaired had gone when Clarence Thomas was being considered for a seat on the Supreme Court. He acknowledged that the conversation with her hadn't gone well. 

He really needed to call Anita Hill a couple of weeks ago to, sort of, apologize, after 28 years of silence and inform the public about it on the day he launched his campaign? 

Not that she doesn't deserve an apology for what he, in 1991, as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee that was conducting confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas allowed his colleague senators to get away with as they trashed her credibility and personal reputation. 

It was one African-American women facing 15 white men, who, among other things, mocked her.  She had stepped forward to courageously accuse Thomas of sexually harassing her when he was her supervisor at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The way Biden allowed her to be mistreated is the worst blot on his record so it is understandable that, as he considered running for the third time for president, he would be thinking about how this would play out for him politically. Perhaps, too, he was thinking about an inner need to try to make heart-felt amends.

He knew it would be perilous to begin his campaign with an "apology tour" that would inevitably be more than about the Thomas hearings--it would also include needing to explain away his support for increasing the mandatory jail time for drug dealers and, more disturbing, why he voted to endorse the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Republicans love beating up on what they perceive to be wimpy liberals' alleged inability to be tough. Apologizing, therefore, is about as bad a thing a Democrat aspiring to be commander-in-chief can do. Girls apologize, real men plow ahead.

So what was Joe up to?

Whatever the range of his intentions and feelings about calling Anita Hill they must have included the hope that she would grant him absolution and, as a result, his problems with women who have long memories about his chauvinism would be one troubling thing he would no longer have to worry about in the middle of the night when he and his goblins are churning.

So what did he wind up with as a result of misunderstanding, miscalculating the depth of Anita Hill's residual issues and feelings? 

Did he think she would casually put aside the meaning of the defining moment of her life to throw him a cheap lifeline? This should have been an easy one--if he were serious, she said, he should have expressed more than "regret" for "what she endured."

What he tried to get away with is the classic non-apology apology. Not that he was sorry for his behavior. Instead he said that he was sorry she felt that way. Putting it off on her while taking responsibility only for how he made her feel. She told him this and refused to say never mind. The time for that for women is over.

So on this special day for Biden, he made one of his famous gaffs. Quite a big one. Friday's New York Times had his announcement as its front page lead--"Biden Joins Race, Invoking Battle for Nation's Soul." But abutting it, stepping all over his launch, was the story, "Biden's 'Regret' for Hill's Pain Fails to Soothe."

None of this is fatal, but being clueless on his first day suggests not just insensitivity but poor strategic thinking. 

More of this kind of behavior, though, could leave moderate Democrats and Independents bereft.

December 26, 2018--Swing Vote

Occasionally, one of my predictions comes true. For example, my suggesting in early October that with swing man Anthony Kennedy no longer on the Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts would assume that role.

I noted that Supreme Courts are referred to by historians after whomever is the Chief. Thus there is the Warren Court and the Rehnquist Court and the Berger Court or, for that matter, the John Marshall Court.

Knowing this, I wondered, with Trump appointing far-right judges, how the current Chief Justice, John Roberts, was feeling about his name being associated with a court that has descended into full-bore partisanship. 

It appears that he is now thinking that unless he becomes the swing vote, replacing Kennedy, the Roberts Court will forever after be dominated by ideological lightweights such as Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. And though he does not appoint his colleagues, he will still be perceived as responsible for their actions.

Does Roberts want to go down in history rafted up with this crew?

Apparently not, which is good news to progressives and America as the Supreme Court is likely over the next year to be called on to decide if a sitting president (Trump) can be indicted or if the Mueller Report, when it is completed, can be withheld from public view by Trump's small-minded Justice Department.

The latest evidence that Roberts has become the court's swing man was his vote last week to join the four liberal-leaning justices in rejecting an appeal from the Trump administration that would, if approved, have overturned many decades of asylum policy. To severely restrict the rules by which fleeing refuges can seek the protection of the United States. 

Earlier, he again joined the liberals in overruling a lower court decision that would have restricted federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Thomas and his comrades cried foul. But there was Roberts guided by the Constitution, not partisan reflex.

In even bigger picture terms Roberts' behavior and leadership is of great consequence because, if it persists, it will mean that at least one of the three branches of our otherwise dysfunctional government might again begin to function as envisaged by the Founders and thus will be guided by the Constitution they bequeathed to us.

Then there is the open spat that has been festering since 2015 between Trump and Roberts. All initiated by Trump's intemperate criticism of what he claimed to be the ideological bias of federal judges.

During the election campaign Trump frequently spoke out against what he asserted were liberal federal judges who acted as political partisans. Those in the 9th circuit, for example.

Two days before Thanksgiving Trump attacked an "Obama judge" for ruling against him on immigration. In an unusual public rebuke Rogers shot back, claiming that there are no "Obama judges, Bush Judges, or Clinton judges." Just independent ones.

Actually, there are highly partisan federal judges who are guided more by their beliefs than by precedent or the Constitution. Conservatives as well as liberals. Supreme Court justice Anton Scalia is a powerful example of the former. 

But Roberts is articulating his aspirations for the judiciary and is modeling independent-minded behavior that he hopes will become the standard. He should be commended for that.

October 1, 2018--Brett Kavanaugh: Wasted

If allowed by Republicans to do their work what the FBI will discover about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in their now resumed background check will turn out to be quite simple--back when he was accused of sexually assaulting Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and other young women he was a habitual drunk.

That would explain almost everything, including that he might in fact not remember the hideous incident. He may have been that blotto.

If they interview just a few people who knew him at the time would it surprise anyone who listened to Kavanaugh stumble through his testimony Thursday that he had a serious drinking problem? It even looked, as he rambled incoherently, that he still is a drunk.

The FBI should begin by interviewing his Yale College roommate, James Roche, who has written: 

"It is from this experience [as his roommate] that I concluded that although Brett was normally reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time, and that he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk . . . I remember Brett frequently drinking excessively and becoming incoherently drunk."

This is particularly condemning since anyone who has had a roommate knows that roommates know everything about each other.

And of course there is Mark Judge, one of Kavanaugh's prep-school drinking buddies, who was a self-admitted black-out drunk and wrote revealing books about that, including one, Wasted, that included a semi-fictional character who was habitually inebriated, "Bart O'Kavanaugh." Sound familiar?

Next the FBI should look closely at the entry Georgetown Prep senior Kavanaugh wrote about himself for the school yearbook. According to the New York Times--

"There is lots about football, reports of plenty of drinking, and parties at the beach." Among the reminiscences about sports and booze is a mysterious entry: “Renate Alumnius.”

The word “Renate” appears at least 14 times in Georgetown Preparatory School’s 1983 yearbook, on individuals’ pages and in a group photo of nine football players, including Kavanaugh, who were described as the “Renate Alumni.” It is a reference to Renate Schroeder, then a student at a nearby Catholic girls’ school.

Two of Judge Kavanaugh’s classmates say that mentioning Renate was his coded way of boasting about his and other classmates' sexual conquests.

“They were very disrespectful, at least verbally, with Renate,” said Sean Hagan, a Georgetown Prep student at the time, referring to Judge Kavanaugh and his teammates. “I can’t express how disgusted I am with them, then and now.”

And then there was last week's bizarre free-associative ramble of an answer to Senator Amy Klobuchar's questions about his apparent love for beer.

In his answer he mentioned "beer" and "brewskis" 29 times and at the end, seemingly drunk in the witness chair, bizarrely pressed Senator Klobuchar to talk about her own drinking habits--

"I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexually assaulted anyone . . . We drank beer."  

Asked if he had ever suffered memory loss during a time that he had been drinking, Kavanaugh said no, and returned to his beer soliloquy-- 

"We drank beer, and you know, so . . . so did, I think, the vast majority of . . . of people our age at the time. But in any event, we drank beer, and . . . and still do. So whatever, you know."

Within the window of the week the FBI has to do its investigation they should be able to come up with a pretty complete picture of Kavanaugh's drinking history. Many things he lied about in his sworn Senate confirmation hearing.

If he was such a serious drinker and drunk during those years, to disqualify him it will not even be necessary for the FBI to get to the bottom of what actually happened the evening Dr. Blasey was nearly raped.

If this truth about his alcoholism is exposed Kavanaugh will either be compelled to withdraw or be pulled by Trump. We can't have another Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. What Thomas got away with 27 years ago can't be allowed to happen again.

June 29, 2018--The Supremes

Fret not. At least not yet. 

Yes, Anthony Kennedy is stepping down from the Supreme Court, and liberals and moderates (if there are any of these left) are concerned that his so-called "swing vote" and moderating presence will depart with him. 

And so if Trump nominates and the Senate confirms (as they will--leave that to Mitch McConnell) a stealth arch-conservative similar to Clarence Thomas' new best friend, associate justice Neil Gorsuch, say goodbye to any hope that on key occasions justice Kennedy will join the four progressives on the court and things will be at least a little right with the world.

I hate to sound cynical, but Kennedy isn't so moderate and hasn't often, in truth, been that swinging a Supreme. 

With the exception of gay rights and in limited ways abortion rights, where as a libertarian he has been supportive (after all he's from Northern California) he has almost always been the dependable fifth vote, joining the four knee-jerk conservatives.

This year, for example, on all but one occasion he joined the right-wing four. So if he swings, almost all the time he swings to the right.

Thus his leaving the court will not change that much.

But here's what to fret about--

RBG. Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

She seems still to be vital, but at 85, the court's oldest justice, a pancreatic cancer surviver, how much longer can she schlepp herself to her chambers?

(With Kennedy retired--he is 81--the next oldest justice is liberal Stephen Breyer, who is 79.)

I'm no doctor, but though RBG could make it through the remainder of Trump's (first?) term, what are the odds of her being around for the four years after that? I'm not a betting person but . . .

I hate myself for saying this, but considering her medical history, if RBG genuinely cared about the issues she has devoted her life to--like the various rights of women--why didn't she step down during the first half of Barak Obama's first term when the Democrats controlled not only the White House but both houses of Congress? It would have been possible for him to nominate and ram a moderate through the Senate confirmation process.

Then we would have little to fret about. But now we need to do more than fret but to worry and I mean worry profoundly.

More than anything else we need to vote in November and work hard between now and then to increase turnout.