Tom Rinaldo
Tom Rinaldo's JournalYes, Trump's SC pick imperils Roe V Wade and Obamacare. But don't forget The Dreamers
They have not been deported to Mexico only because of Obama's Executive order temporarily allowing them to remain in the nation they grew up in. This summer, in a narrow 5 to 4 ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump Administration's effort to terminate DACA. But it did so on a narrow basis:
"While the Supreme Court ruled against Trump’s first attempt, it did so on relatively narrow grounds, arguing it was unlawful only because the administration did not consider all the options to rein in the program and failed to account for the interests of those who relied on it. The ruling thus theoretically left the door open to other legal rationales for ending DACA that take into account those factors."
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/18/trump-daca-2020-329087
Dreamers are not safe if Conservatives consolidate their hold on the Supreme court. If Democrats regain control of the White House and Senate, a legislative fix becomes available (assuming enough Republican Senators join with Democrats in preventing immigration reform from being blocked via a filibuster.) But if Republicans remain in control of the Senate a President Biden alone can not secure the Dreamers future in America.
Allowing the Dreamers to remain in the only home they have over known has broad public support, but it is, not surprisingly, especially important to the Latino community. Given the importance of Latino support for Biden in November's election, and in light of concerns expressed by some that not enough has been done to strengthen Biden's edge with this critical segment of the electorate, Democrats should elevate concerns about the future of DACA in our commentary regarding Supreme Court vacancies.
When will a reporter ask Trump if the United States is Melania's own country?
When Trump says of Congresswoman Ilhan Omar...
"She’s telling us how to run our country. How did you do where you came from? How’s your country doing? "
... it practically begs those same questions of Melania, who gave plenty of advice to Americans about how the U.S. should be run during her prime time keynote TV address to the nation. By Trump's logic, shouldn't she be confined to only giving Americans advice about Slovenia? Both Melania Trump and Ilhan Omar arrived in the United States in 1995, but Omar has been a citizen of the United States for six years longer than has Melania Trump. Furthermore, Omar has been a U.S. citizen for her entire adult life, officially becoming an American at age 17 whereas Melania was already 36 when she was nationalized.
But it seems Donald Trump believes that it is only African Americans who can not call the United States their country after they become citizens of it. Surprise, surprise 
Do NOT use the term "Pack the Court." Our stated goal should be to "Restore" it.
Words matter. "Packing the Court" communicates a blatant partisan political tactic. That's fine with those of us who believe that Democrats need to fight fire with fire and use hardball political tactics to counter Republican hardball tactics, but we don't have to worry about holding onto our support, do we?
I gather we already have a sprinkling of Democratic voices who express concern over doing something extreme like expanding membership on the Supreme Court. I always expect some overly cautious sentiments from at least a few Democrats, but the problem is we will need (depending on the result of Senate races this year) either all or almost all Democratic Senators to abolish the filibuster and then add seats to the Supreme Court. So we have to be mindful of "moderate" concerns.
This may be a case where proper framing makes the difference between a victory and a loss. Assuming Democrats control the majority in the next Senate session, I propose we enact The Supreme Court Restoration Act of 2021. Explicit in its name is the message that Democrats are only seeking to restore the rightful balance to the Supreme Court, approximately what would have been in place had Republicans not acted to "Pack the Court" themselves through inappropriately using their control of the Senate in two raw power plays.
We can rightfully argue that the Supreme Court today would have four left of center Justices and four right of center Justices had Republicans not stood in the way of Obama's appointment of Garland even receiving a confirmation hearing. While we also hold that a vacancy opening up six weeks before a Presidential Election should be filled by the candidate who wins that Election, Republicans seem set on filling that seat with one of their own. Should that happen Right of Center Justices will then outnumber left of Center Justices by Six to Three. When the Supreme Court Restoration Act of 2021 is enacted, Democrats will be able to add two new Justices to the Court, presumably thus shifting the political balance back to a one seat differential, with 6 Right of Center Justices to 5 Left of Center Justices.
There would be nothing radical about such a move. It would restore the rightful political balance to the Court, the one that would have existed had Garland been rightfully seated, even if Republicans now jam through one of their own to replace RBG mere weeks before the Presidential Election. The proposal I am making here is meant to win over wavering Democratic Senators, because without their support there can be no expansion of the Supreme Court to eleven, let alone thirteen or fifteen seats. For that reason, and that reason alone, I further propose that President Biden include Merrick Garland as one of his two picks to add to the Court.
I get that it would be best to add two or more young and unambiguously progressive Justices to the Supreme Court. Under any other circumstances Merrick Garland would not be anywhere near the top of my list of perspective appointments to the Supreme Court. But we don't get to chose our circumstances, they are what they are, and there is a good chance that one or more Democratic Senators defecting will kill whatever chance we have to add any seats to the Supreme Court. That would qualify as an unambiguous loss with major negative consequences for another decade or more. The Supreme Court Restoration Act, with Joe Biden's agreement, will restore the proper handling of Presidential appointments to the Supreme Court. Merrick Garland will finally get his Senate Floor vote, as it should have been.
Democrats can and should argue that, with a new Senate majority and a Democratic President, they could well have "Packed the Court" with four or six new liberal Justices but instead showed restraint, and instead did only what was minimally necessary to Restore the Supreme Court and undo the damage done to it by Republicans. It is not Republican Senators who we need to persuade with this argument, it is a handful of "moderate" Democratic Senators who have to find a way forward to supporting this essential move in the next Congress.
Talking Points RE: The Supreme Court Vacancy
When Republicans refused to schedule a confirmation hearing for President Obama's nominee for a Supreme Court vacancy in February 2016, they did so claiming it was then too close to a presidential election for the Senate to act on that vacancy. In February 2016, not only had neither the Democrats nor Republicans picked their 2016 presidential candidates yet, but there wasn't even clarity on which candidates would likely be chosen by either party. Now, with election day less than six weeks off, not only are the 2020 presidential candidates already chosen, but actual voting in the 2020 general election has already begun.
When President Obama named a nominee for the Supreme Court in 2016, he did so while serving his second term in office. That is significant because Obama had by then already faced voters twice. The American people saw how President Obama handled the duties of his office after he was elected in 2008, with no prior presidential track record, and based on that record they reaffirmed their choice of him as our leader in 2012, providing him with a clear and informed mandate. President Trump has not faced the voters since his actual performance could be evaluated by them. Not only that, but in Trump's one and only election his opponent won the popular vote by nearly three million votes. By way of contrast President Obama won the 2012 popular vote by almost five million votes.
Additionally, since Gallop began tracking presidential approval ratings going back to 1937, Donald Trump is the only U.S. President who has never reached a 50% or higher approval rating while in office. According to Wikipedia, Trump's highest approval rating was 49%, his average approval rate over his presidency is 40%, and his most recent (7/23/20) rate was 41%. By way of contrast Obama reached a high of 67% approval, had an average of 47.9% approval, and left office in January 2017 with an approval rate of 59%. President Obama's 2016 Supreme Court pick came backed by a popular mandate that President Trump's last second attempt to fill a SC vacancy can not even remotely approach.
President Trump is one of only three American Presidents who have been impeached in office. And though he, like the two others before him, failed to be convicted by the U.S Senate, Donald Trump is the only impeached United States President who failed to win total backing from Senators of his own party during the conviction vote. Of greater current relevancy however is this: A number of Republican Senators during Donald Trump's Senate trial used, as an argument not to impeach Trump, the fact that 2016 was a presidential election year and that it should be left to the nation's voters, with national elections still nine months distant, and not the Senate to determine whether Donald Trump should remain in office. If that argument was strong enough to not hold Donald Trump accountable in the Senate for high crimes and misdemeanors, it is powerful enough to deny a Senate confirmation hearing for a life time appointment to the Supreme Court by a president who awaits the voters verdict on him to be rendered in less than six weeks.
Finally, Donald Trump is already calling on Federal Courts to determine the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election through the premature halting of vote counting in that election. Given that stance, it is an irreconcilable conflict of interest to allow Donald Trump to, at this late hour, choose who will next be seated on the United states Supreme Court.
Merrick Garland should be one of two people President Biden nominates for an expanced SC
That would emphatically make the point that Democrats are only acting to restore the balance on the Court that rightfully should exist. Garland's appointment was stolen from Obama, arguably illegally but certainly immorally. And with less than seven weeks remaining now before a presidential election, which ever side wins that election should fill the new vacancy caused by RBG's passing. If Republicans deny Biden that opportunity, therein lies our moral justification for legally expanding the U.S. Supreme Court by two seats if we control the next Senate.
That is a position that Democrats can sell to the American people. I would not fear a backlash over supposedly "packing the court" if the next Congress expands it by two seats and Garland and another qualified person of Biden's choice then were nominated to fill those two additional vacancies.
I always opposed increasing the size of the U.S. Supreme Court
But if Republicans manage to fill this vacancy before our next President takes office, it is imperative that the Supreme Court be expanded to eleven members. if Biden wins and Democrats regain the majority in the Senate.
I always opposed attempting to change the basic architecture of our democracy for partisan ideological reasons, no matter how noble they might otherwise be. What the Republicans will now be attempting to engineer obliterates any concerns I once held in that regard. Assuming Joe Biden wins in November, a Democratic majority in the Senate of the next Congress would have no honorable course left open to them but to abolish the Filibuster and then pass a bill expanding the U.S. Supreme Court to eleven members. The two new Supreme Court seats Democrats then could fill would be the same two seats that Mitch McConnell blocked Democratic Presidents from bringing to the Senate floor for votes. It would be the only just remedy left for America.
It is absolutely essential now that Democrats regain control of the U.S. Senate, and then for a unified government under Democratic control to restore justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. The heroic struggle RGB made to hold on to life until this point can not be allowed to be in vain.
Memo to Barr RE: Mandatory "Shelter in Place" orders violating Civil Liberties
What do you call mandatory curfews then, which you support when mass protests are underway? What about mandatory evacuation orders which are issued when major wildfires and Hurricanes approach inhabited regions? Shouldn't the public be free to make their own decisions on how to navigate these potentially dangerous situations without Government imposing restrictions on their freedom to come and go as they see fit?
Or what about the freedom to light our own homes and neighborhoods, or to navigate our roads at night, as we ourselves choose? Millions of Americans lost that freedom during World War II. Was that a massive violation of our civil liberties also?
"During World War II, blackouts were issued by the US government along the East Coast and were enforced by the Civil Defense wardens. Lights from homes and businesses on land would create silhouettes of the Allies’ supply ships, making them easy targets for German U-boats (Local) and it is very apparent from the air at night that the lights from cities and villages are an excellent guide to navigate an aircraft and for air raid targets (World War II Blackout). To discourage attacks, streetlights were covered to allow only a small light cast straight downward and car headlights were dimmed and covered with tape, which was also used in homes to hold curtains closed (Local) and the US Government required that all communities have a blackout plan in place (World War II Blackout).
https://lifeonthehomefrontduringworldwar.weebly.com/blackouts.html
Americans can't smoke wherever we want to. We can't drive around in cars without seat belts fastened, or ride motorcycles without wearing a helmet. Even land that we legally own can be confiscated by the government if there is an important public interest in it being used for a purpose deemed necessary by the government. Just ask landowners on the Texas/Mexico border, Mr. Barr, who are having their property seized so that Trump can build his wall.
And while we are at it, what right does the government have to tell me which side of the road I have to drive on. Doesn't that also take away my freedom to decide best for myself how and when to avoid potential vehicular danger?
Everyone who briefed Trump on the truth about Covid-19 last Jan/Feb/March could be accused
of withholding critical information from the American people also if we take that approach. They knew that Trump was lying to the public also. They theoretically could have resigned and gone public with the information and accused Trump of misleading the public with deadly results. Bob Woodward wasn't the only one who knew Trump wasn't being truthful about it. Others may not have had tapes of Trump but they had official positions of importance with access to inside information that potentially gave them credibility. Two or more of them could have backed each other up.
Why each of them didn't no doubt varies with the individual and the jobs they held inside Government under Trump. Many shades of gray, some darker than other, but Donald Trump was our only President, and he is the one who overtly lied to the people he had sworn to protect.
A simple observation about that dreaded attitude called "overconfidence"
Overconfidence can lead to under performing, sure. It is a serious threat in cases where fierce motivation is lacking. When you aren't enthusiastic about giving it your all to begin with, the belief that you don't really need to can be disastrous. That is not us. That is not now.
Think back two years. Fervent anti-Trump, anti-Republican organizing had been ongoing since November 2016. We all sensed a Blue Wave building. We worked for it, we believed in it, and truth be told, we expected it to happen. And it did. Sure we understood that nothing is in the bag until it is in the bag. We weren't overconfident in 2018, but we were overall confident.The scent of victory in the air did not breed complacency. If anything we smelled Republican blood in the water which drove us on. We began to believe that more and more seats lay within reach for Democrats, and we responded accordingly.
For all of the talk about the danger of overconfidence, not enough is said about the downside of insufficient confidence. When polls come out showing Biden leading Trump by ten points, you can almost count on someone responding to that news with the comment "we need to campaign as if we were ten points behind instead." No, we should not. People do not campaign well when they are ten points behind. They make unforced errors. They are plagued by doubts, they daily have to counter the fear that nothing they can do now will be enough, that victory is probably beyond reach, that it simply isn't worth fully committing yourself to a cause you sense is lost. If you have any doubt about the truth of that psychology simply study political fundraising. Money dries up for candidates who are perceived to be falling out of the running.
It is different to be trailing by a couple of points instead. Then it can seem that every dollar raised, every door bell rung, every phone call made, might be critical in turning the tide. Republicans need to believe that Trump is now, or very soon will be, within striking distance to win. That is the preferred scenario Republicans are desperately clinging on to, despite Trump's consistently poor performance ratings, despite an economy in deep recession, despite nearly 200,000 American deaths from a pandemic that clearly was horribly mismanaged. We shouldn't throw them any lifelines.
C'mon folks, we've all seen the old movies. There is a reason why the Scots were led into battle by a brigade of screaming bagpipes. It struck a note of fear into the hearts of their opponents, a belief that something was coming at them that they were powerless to stand up to. Skill, luck and valor defeat an enemy in a contest that is closely matched. But fear will rout an enemy that has come to believe all hope is lost. And many a victorious army has been driven to sweep aside all resistance by a belief in their own bright destiny.
You know what we don't hear so much of?
Disillusioned Democrats who voted for Hillary in 2016 but who now plan to vote for Trump. Not so many reports of that.
Nor is there a high profile ad campaign organized by former Democrats urging the defeat of Biden called The (George) Wallace Project.
You don't read daily reports of ex-Obama Administration officials who knew and worked with Joe Biden coming forward saying that Biden must be defeated for the good of the country.
Nor are new books released every week from former close associates of Joe Biden blasting him for his horrific failings as a human being.
And we don't read much about people who voted for Democrats in 2016, but this time they are voting Green, either.
We do still hear from die hard Trump supporters who remain die hard Trump supporters. They are the loud minority.
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Oct 20, 2003, 06:39 PMNumber of posts: 22,912
