Biden's Success And Trump's Pathetic Diminishing. . . .

 

 

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN 

 

President Biden is a 79 year old lifelong politician who was humble enough to resist the initial recruitment efforts to make him the democratic candidate running against Trump in the 2016 election. Biden is, above all, a decent man and one whose political career has benefited America. 

 

Currently, as Trump’s popularity with voters has diminished to an almost record low, the Biden administration has been effectively working with the Congress and in recent months seen to the passage of substantial legislation. And Biden’s popularity has improved.

 

 

 

 

I have personally seen on TV some of President Biden’s verbal mistakes or pauses suggestive of confusion—but he recovers; and most importantly, President Biden is surrounded by staff who help him get the job done. 

 

Most of the American press have treated him with the respect he deserves. Most importantly, President Biden is a decent man who with his assistants is performing at least adequately. He is not dangerous and is more loyal to America than to any of his own self-interests. 

 

For the record, I grew up in a republican home, have been a registered republican my whole life, voted once for Trump and most recently for Biden. 

 

 

FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP—WHAT A JOKE, WHAT DISTRESSINGLY BAD BEHAVIOR

 

In the run up to the 2016 election, I watched all the republican forums and debates. Trump was the extreme outlier. He never actually debated anyone; instead, toward his fellow debaters he showed clear-cut disrespect by simply denying their point, mocking them, and pivoting to draw attention to himself. He made himself a scene to behold-- something more crazy than ever before in politics, such that you could not stop watching what was going to unfold next. And unfold it did. Boom! He was going to solve the crisis at the border by building a 2000 mile long wall. When asked who would pay for it, he didn’t pause at all. He nonchalantly said Mexico would pay for it. Mexico said no we won’t; and they didn’t.

 

Trump’s tactics never changed: grab people’s attention, speak what’s outlandish, give no respect appropriate to the occasion, no political correctness, no empathy, and arrogantly show no concern for the non-outliers on the stage. He only cared about his showmanship and capturing the audience. With his strategy, he never in his campaign produced a legitimate, stable platform to offer to American citizens. His impulsive randomness was always front and center. 

 

On the international scene, when then president Trump landed in Britain on a state visit, he found occasion to publicly insult the Mayor of London even before he had met him! Trump’s inappropriate official state visit comments led the Mayor to say that Trump’s behavior was what would be expected of an eleven year old boy. 

 

Former Director of the FBI Robert Mueller performed a thorough investigation of Trump’s alleged wrong-doings (there were seven charges in the indictment) which led to the first of his two impeachments. Mueller did not conclude that the Trump administration colluded with the Russians to affect the 2016 election; but Mueller identified activities which could be obstruction of justice; Mueller, appropriately , did not take the role of judge and say Trump had obstructed justice—that would be for the impeachment process in Congress to do.

 

 

With this short background, the point I want to make is as follows:

• The Mueller report contains many, many incidents of Trump’s grossly inappropriate behavior and his own staff trying to protect Trump from himself—warning him about negative consequences.
   
• But he ignored his staff’s warnings and charged ahead.
   
• When the bad consequences came, he blamed his critics as just being political, or he mocked them, or he claimed it part of a hoax. 
   
• Before during and after Trump’s two impeachments, he never changed. 
   
• He never changed when he lost a significant case in federal court and the judge said, “You are not a king” (and above the law).
   
• He never changed after he lost the election for a second term. Instead, he openly made wide-ranging efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including his prompting of the insurrection attempt January 6th.
   
• Before, during and after two impeachments the Republicans in the Senate let Trump off the hook and did not convict him of the charges. Instead they continued to support Trump. And 95% of the republican Congressmen and women turned hostile and mute to the Democrats’ attempts to hold him responsible and prevent his further damage to democracy.

SENATOR MITT ROMNEY 

 

Could America have avoided and escaped all together the Trump 2017-2020 presidency?  Yes! 

 

They could have by listening to Senator Mitt Romney. 

 

On March 3, 2016, toward the end of the Republican debate series, I watched on TV,  Mr. Romney’s speech in which he called out Trump as a fraud.

View Mr. Romney’s speech at: https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/mitt-romney-presidential-race-speech

 

I watched and listened closely to Senator Romney’s speech. It was clear and the publicly known facts justified his opinion. 

 

Because Trump has always been such a self-promoting and personally revealing public figure, what Mr. Romney had to say was not surprising at all. Trump’s obvious character flaws and lack of political office experience, along with his chronically disruptive behavior during the primaries—all of this made it seem impossible that he could be allowed to become the Republican candidate for president.

THE JULY 2016 REPUBLICAN (GRAND OLD PARTY = GOP) CONVENTION

 

It was the machinery of the Republican National Party (GOP for short) which caused him to be the candidate. Their rules ruled and the republican delegates from all over the country cast their votes at the convention. He needed 50%. He got 70% of the delegate votes, making him the presidential candidate by a considerable margin.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-set-become-gop-s-official-presidential-nominee-n612616

 

 

NOW IT IS SIX YEARS SINCE THAT REPUBLICAN CONVENTION . . .

What follows is a collection of evidence for voters to keep in mind and act upon to protect America from Trump, who spreads conspiracy theories, lies, and routinely contributes to the dysfunction of all. Trump is dangerous to democratic government and there is no reason to believe that the 76 year old Trump will ever change. 

 

Voters need to read and understand why Trump can still be dangerous because he is a showman, has a following, and to this day continues to explore ways to violate the laws of this country. He wants to win. To win for the sake of winning. He is a man who, when president, and in his ignorance, flirted with the idea of pardoning himself for the crimes of which he has being accused. Or maybe he was just toying with public opinion.

 

Trump continues on with the Big Lie of election fraud. He just recently has been demanding the 2020 election be undone, like it never happened, so we could have a new election! The height of Trump’s arrogance and presumptuousness is that he has been kicked off from some major social media for spreading misinformation and racist attitudes; he had to resort to creating his own new social media site called, “Truth Social.” And on “Truth Social” he is just being the same guy with the Big Lies. Lately, his audience on “Truth Social” has been decreasing; and, a wished for merger has been put on hold. Not promising. Some news media find signs everyone is getting tired of his antics.

 

In 2019 Michael Cohen, the attorney known as Trump’s legal problem “fixer,” explained how Trump was like a mob boss who escaped consequences of illegal activity by only implying what subordinates needed to do—and then they would do so. Cohen predicted well how Trump as president would successfully avoid being held accountable. Cohen pled guilty and testified at great length to Congress about Trump and his history of wrong-doing. Trump showed us everything Cohen warned us about.

 

These Trump associates have pled guilty or been convicted of crimes related to their loyal service to Trump. Not unexpectedly, Trump pardoned several of them prior to leaving office, but not Cohen, of course. https://www.newsweek.com/guide-trump-allies-whove-pleaded-guilty-been-convicted-crimes-1735298

 

Allen Weisselberg (CFO of Trump Organization)

Rick Gates

Paul Manafort

Michael Cohen

George Papadopoulos

Roger Stone

Michael Flynn

George Nader

Elliot Broidy

Steve Bannon

 

 

The republicans in the Senate insured Trump would not be found guilty of any of the charges from the two, separate impeachments. This fact is the biggest reason Trump has not been held accountable so far. He never admits error. I’ve never seen or read of him apologizing or taking responsibility for misbehavior.

 

Almost all republican congressmen have never publicly acknowledged Trump’s wrongdoings. And right wing conservative states have passed hundreds of laws trying to fix election fraud, fraud which was non existent.  But those right wing conservative states have been passing dozens of laws impeding voting rights with measures which likely will affect minorities the most.

 

All of the federal courts have dismissed the dozens of lawsuits brought by Trump with his Big Lie conspiracy theory of election fraud. The only election fraud which has shown up in national news is Trump’s attempts to “find” himself more votes in Georgia to make him the winner in the last election. The consensus and expert opinion results on the 2020 election was that it was the most accurate and fraud free ever. Trump's claims were just that Big Lie once again. Several of Trump’s lawyers have already or will lose their licenses to practice law because of their ethical violations. 

 

In 2019 a British medical journal (Lancet) published research estimating and concluding that 40% of the first 500,000 COVID-19 American deaths were preventable; and these researchers concluded that Trump dismissed the seriousness of COVID-19 even though he privately believed it to be serious. They said he refused to support interventions which were known to be helpful:

 

He politicized mask wearing, and held indoor events “[A] ttended by thousands, where masks were discouraged and physical distancing was impossible.”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/02/lancet-study-40-percent-u-s-covid-19-coronavirus-deaths-avoidable-unnecessary.html

CONCLUSION

 

Americans will be voting this November in the mid-term elections. Everyone should make every last effort to vote. Individual voters must somehow sort out which actual, nitty gritty ISSUES are most important for OUR COUNTRY’S WELFARE. 

 

In this blog I’ve been clear in saying that President Biden is a decent man worthy of respect. He is a man with a reasonable agenda for helping the vast majority of citizens. There also are republican politicians, apart from Trump, who are decent men and would be capable presidents.

 

What’s coming up in future blogs. I’m digging deeper and deeper into (1) why we the people have surprisingly little voting power over our government; and, (2) why the supreme court with all their intellectual capacities can confuse themselves on certain cases. Some cases and findings I’ve been reading defy common sense.

Overall, There's Lots To Respect About America's Supreme Court

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION 

 

So far in my blogs I’ve found it easy to zero in on what’s ugly and wrong about politics and politicians. 

 

But doing the lengthy research necessary for today’s blog, I ended up deeply impressed with and proud of the Supreme Court of the United States. In the first few years of the 1800s, men with brilliant minds and common sense began to establish the day to day operations of the Supreme Court. 

 

Seeking to learn the nitty gritty mechanics of how the Supreme Court of the United States (hereafter using the acronym SCOTUS) operates, I found former William H. Rehnquist’s book: The Supreme Court in a revised and updated, 2002 edition. It contains some “heavy reading” that is necessary due to the solid and detained information presented about those always interesting, and relevant nitty gritty details. And Rehnquist’s book is engaging, thorough, and very authoritative.

 

There are several other books I read to be sure I was getting accurate impressions of SCOTUS and the justices’ personalities, and these books are listed at the end of this blog.

 

 

THE JOB OF THE SUPREME COURT

 

It is the job of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to interpret and decide the law as found in the Constitution and any federal law based on the Constitution. 

 

It was not long after the founding of America that in 1803 the SCOTUS Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the case of Marbury v. Madison that:

• “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. . . The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution.”
   
• Chief Justice Marshall had to put Thomas Jefferson and the Executive Branch of Government into its place because Jefferson was ignoring the Judicial Branch of Government.
   
• Marshall wrote the opinion of the Supreme Court, with all the other justices concurring. He defined the four issues at stake; he fully and clearly laid out the law governing all the issues; and he showed why the Executive Branch’s stand was inconsistent with itself logically. 
   
• The opinion Marbury v. Madison in 1803 gave SCOTUS the credibility and power it needed to take its rightful place as one of the three, essential branches of government—the other two being the Executive Branch (headed by the President) and the Legislative Branch (Congress). 
   
• I encourage you to read the two and one-half pages of Marshall’s brilliantly written logic. It’s well written, well worth the effort to read, and you can be proud of understanding something so important! It can be found online. Google Marbury v. Madison. 
   

HOW ARE 100 CASES OUT OF 1000s OF APPEALS TO SCOTUS SELECTED TO BE HEARD?

 

There is a well-thought-out process, called certiorari, for picking the approximately 100 cases heard by the Supreme Court in any given year. I will lay out a summary of the certiorari process, but I won’t hereafter use that word. Hopefully you’ll recognize that word and know what it means if you see it in future reading about SCOTUS.

 

The typical reason for requesting SCOTUS to get involved is that the petitioner (the one asking their case to be heard) has lost their case in a federal court of appeals or in a state supreme court.

 

Each justice has three or four legal clerks, who are recently graduated attorneys; they read the background information on the case and assess whether it would be usefully considered by SCOTUS. SCOTUS mostly takes cases which are important, not to just one plaintiff, but broadly important to creating and maintaining the laws needed by all Americans. 

 

When a new case arrives, then a legal clerk writes a memo containing the analysis and recommendations on whether that case should be selected and heard by the justices.

• Each justice reads his share of the clerk-written memos and indicates whether, later on in this process, he will vote to grant or deny the petition for the case to be heard and decided by SCOTUS. 
   
• If four or more justices believe the petition has merit and appropriateness, then that petition will be discussed in a conference of the justices. According to Rehnquist, the cases ending up discussed at conference are those in which: (1) there have been conflicts between other courts; or (2) the legal issues are of general importance; or (3) a serious wrong decision has been made in the case. Cases with one or more of these factors would likely go to conference (Rehnquist, 2001). 
   
• Importantly, the purpose of the Supreme Court is not to insure justice to every person going through the court systems—because it would not be possible. Moreover, since over a hundred years ago, there have been federal district courts and federal appeals courts in addition to state courts and state appeals courts. So, litigants do have for their case both their original court and an appeals court, which should be sufficient.

 

 

THE SCOTUS STEPS ON THE PATH FOR ARRIVING AT ITS CASE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

 

Now I will summarize and describe what happens in a case after the certiorari process has selected that case to be heard and decided by SCOTUS.

 

Step 1 is Justices Learning About the Upcoming Case

 

Any case heard by SCOTUS is A REALLY BIG DEAL. 

 

A tremendous amount of legal work by the parties has already produced elaborate, written plans for presenting the case to SCOTUS. And the nine justices will have read the background information on the case, including the memos from their law clerks.

 

Step 2 is Oral Arguments

 

The attorneys for each party will have 30 minutes to argue their case in front of the nine justices. Oral arguments are open to the public, but with very limited seating. Transcripts and audio recordings of the arguments are available. 

 

The attorneys will not talk much about evidence because the focus of SCOTUS is on the law itself. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, “The Supreme Court of the United States does not generally review evidentiary matters, and so the only questions before us in a given case are pure questions of law.” And Rehnquist also said, “A good lawyer should be able to make his necessary points in such a case in one half hour (Rehnquist, 2001 page 242).”

 

Rehnquist says that most judges come prepared for oral arguments by having read background material on the case, but he adds, “A judge who has not prepared at all for oral argument might be more “open-minded,” but it would be the open-mindedness of ignorance, not of impartiality (Rehnquist, 2001, page 242).” 

 

Step 3 is Conference

In the conference room, the nine justices alone, without their clerks or any other staff, share their prepared opinions on the cases they heard in oral arguments earlier in the week. During the conference the door is literal guarded so that no outside influences intrude and disrupt the very organized process of discussion.

 

The justices are all seated, ordered by seniority, at a long conference table. They share their opinions starting from the Chief Justice on down to the least senior justice. The justices don’t interrupt each other and there is usually not a lot of discussion about the facts of the case. The major purpose isn’t to argue about the facts, but to argue about what the law should dictate and to determine whether a majority of the justices can agree on findings. Most of the justices try to help reach a majority opinion. That is, a majority would be 5 of the 9 justices in agreement.

 

The Chief Justice usually takes time to summarize the main issues of the case and as each justice talks there is less and less that needs to be said. By the time the most junior justice has a chance to speak, Rehnquist wrote, “[I]t will be evident that a majority of the Court has agreed upon a basis for either affirming or reversing the decision of the lower court in the case under discussion (Rehnquist, 2001, page 254).

 

At the end of the conference t Chief Justice confirms with the other justices his count of how each is likely to vote. 

 

Step 4 is the Assignment of Which Justice Will Write the Majority Opinion

If the Chief Justice is part of the majority opinion in the case, he will choose whether or not he writes the majority opinion or assigns it to someone else in the majority; but if the Chief Justice is not in the majority then the senior justice associate justice in the majority will assign the opinion’s author.

 

In addition to the majority opinion there are often dissenting opinions and concurring opinions. A justice who voted with the majority might write a concurring opinion to emphasize a specific aspect of the case or to further reveal his particular concerns. A dissenting opinion is written by a justice who did not vote with the majority and who also feels strongly enough that he wants to formally wight out why he disagrees with the majority. 

 

When draft majority opinions and dissents or concurring opinions are written, they are circulated among the justices. Justices read and comment back and forth to clarify or modify their opinions so their sometimes very complex opinions will be clearly understood. Supreme Court opinions are part of federal law and influence American law far into the future. 

 

In reading Rehnquist’s book, along with majority opinions and dissents, I’ve learned that in SCOTUS the dissenting thoughts and personal and legal opinions are welcomed. Justices discuss their differing opinions and perspectives. They might invite one another to join an opinion, but most of the justices do not exert personal pressure upon one another. An example of a justice who does exert personal pressure is justice Antonin Scalia; but at the same time, when he wasn’t in his SCOTUS role, he enjoyed socializing with fellow justices—even ones he made harsh comments toward in his dissents.

 

When all the editing of drafts is completed, the final legal opinions are published on the SCOTUS website. Everyone can know the outcome of the case. Legal opinions from courts indicate winners and losers on serious matters. Legal opinions are necessarily much different from personal opinions. This is a foundational distinction necessary for understanding what the role of SCOTUS is and is not.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

In the last two chapters of Rehnquist’s book, The Supreme Court, he displays his awareness of the ways justices can be biased and how the Court’s procedures and traditions minimize, but can’t completely eradicate bias. He discusses how SCOTUS is influenced by the people of America through the concerns of their Congressional representatives. 

 

In a future blog I will reveal the many pathways by which certain voting blocks insert inappropriate influences into the SCOTUS. 

 

Rehnquist was a highly respected Chief Justice even by persons who didn’t agree with him on the issues. I feel Rehnquist’s leadership has been a strong contribution to the many honorable qualities of SCOTUS. However, I don’t believe very many Americans know enough about SCOTUS and Rehnquist to appreciate his contributions.  

 

These resources and books were used for this blog and recommended for your political science reading pleasure:

 

The Supreme Court by William H. Rehnquist, 2002. This book is detailed both about personalities and SCOTUS procedures. I had to read through some chapters more than once to understand how the procedures fit together. Your efforts will be well worth it. 

 

Great Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court edited by Maureen Harrison and Steve Gilbert, 2003. Easy reading. A lot can be learned quickly from this book. 

 

Out of Order: Stories from the History of the Supreme Court by former SCOTUS Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, 2013. Easy reading. She was a seriously professional justice and her woman’s perspectives have been very beneficial to our country.

 

Sandra Day O’Connor: How the First Woman on the Supreme Court Became Its Most Influential Justice by Joan Biskupic, 2005. Book has 338 pages in narrative and 81 pages of notes, bibliography and index. Reader can learn lots on what made her such an important swing voter. This book could serve well as a college textbook! 

 

The U.S. Supreme Court: A Very Short Introduction by Linda Greenhouse (distinguished journalist and Supreme Court correspondent), 2012. I’ve read many of these Short Introduction books and highly recommend them. They’re all about 125 pages and very well written.

 

The Supreme Court: The Personalities And Rivalries That Defined America by Jeffrey Rosen, 2006. 

 

Find more information to explore at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

            WORKS CITED

            For complete references, see the relevant page on the powertomyvotes.com website.

- END -