MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2021

The U.S. Census Bureau releases state population numbers in a preliminary report today. The population count will determine how many representatives each state will have in the House of Representatives, and the number of Electoral College votes. 

Son of Citizens United? — The U.S. Supreme Court today will hear a case challenging California’s requirement that charitable and non-profit organizations operating in the state provide its attorney general’s office with names and addresses of its largest donors, according to SCOTUSblog. The case, Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Rodriguez (consolidated with the Thomas More Law Center v. Rodriguez) could challenge the last check remaining that puts a spotlight on rich donors contributing to political clauses. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-CT, and Rep. Hank Johnson, D-GA, have sent a letter to Justice Amy Coney Barrett asking she recuse herself from the case, because the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, the non-profit arm of the Koch Brothers’ political advocacy group Americans for Prosperity, announced last September that it would spend “in the seven figures” on a campaign to assure Barrett’s confirmation, SCOTUSblog says. The Supreme Court’s April argument session ends next week. 

Note: Barrett recusal or no, considering the current court’s makeup, including two other Trump administration justices, it would appear Americans for Prosperity have the upper hand in the case.

•••

Who Wants a Jab? -- Twenty percent of U.S. Americans say they do not plan to get a COVID-19 vaccination, according to polling done by Morning Consult. Fourteen percent are unsure and 66% have gotten a jab or plan to. Looked at in terms of party affiliation, 27% of Republicans don’t plan to get vaccinated, the same percentage of Blacks who are not interested in the vaccine. In terms of income, 24% with no college degree are not planning to get vaccinated. Twenty-four percent of these who are earning less than $50,000 per year are also not planning for a visit to a clinic. As for those who are expressing uncertainly, 36% are concerned with side effects and 29% say they think the vaccines ran through clinical trials too quickly.

In terms of who have already been vaccinated or plan to, 85% are over 65 years old; 80% are Democrats; 84% have a post-graduate degree; 69% are men; 80% earn $100,000 or more.

Note: While the results show that 27% of Republicans don’t plan to get a vaccine and only 10% of Democrats think the same way, it should be noted that 59% of Republicans have been vaccinated or plan to. (No surprise: 80% of Democrats.) Notably, 21% of Independents don’t plan to, although 63% of them have been vaccinated or plan to. When considered from the points of view of age, income, and education, older, wealthier and more-well educated Republicans are less opposed to the vaccinations: Only 9% of Republicans over 65 are not planning to be vaccinated; only 9% of Republicans with a post-grad degree are opposed; and 11% of those who earn $100K or more per year are not interested. Which seems to indicate that older, wiser and wealthier Republicans realize the value of a vaccine. 

•••

EU Opens to U.S. Travelers – Fully vaccinated travelers from the U.S. “should” be able to visit the European Union for non-essential travel over the summer, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said. The EU also has approved all three COVID-19 vaccines used in the U.S.--Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson--which opens the door for tourism from the U.S., Politico reports. Meanwhile, the EU also has triggered an emergency assistance response to India’s spike in the coronavirus. “The EU is pooling resources to India’s request for assistance via the EU Civil Protection Mechanism,” von der Leyen tweeted over the weekend.

•••

Biden’s Approval Ratings at 52% -- President Biden’s approval rating is “above water,” The Washington Post reports, but while it’s 10 points above Donald J. Trump’s rating four year ago (42%) and higher than Trump ever reached (Gallup found Trump to have an approval rating of 49% five times during his four years in office), it is not as strong as previous presidents, including Barack Obama (69%), George W. Bush (63%) and going back to Eisenhower at this point, just short of their first 100 days in office. The Washington Post-ABC News poll published Sunday says that broken down by party, 90% of Democrats approve of Biden’s job as president, compared with just 13% of Republicans and 47% of independents, indicating an ever-growing rift between parties and political philosophies. Also, 60% of those polled believe Biden should try to win support from Republicans by “making major changes” to his policies, while 30% believe he should try to get his policies passed with no major concessions.  

Note: Making major changes to his policies will certainly not move the pro-Trump congress members who still appear to control the GOP, though it seems Biden could help strengthen the struggling moderate wing of the Republican party against the pro-Trump wing by reaching a satisfactory deal over his $2.3 trillion infrastructure plan. The moderate Republicans’ counter-bid of $568 billion doesn’t seem very serious, however, as it’s lower than the 2009 Obama stimulus package now criticized for being too modest. Can the two sides eventually get to a number somewhere around the $1.0 to 1.5-trillion level?

•••

Biden Acknowledges Armenian Genocide – On its 106^th anniversary, President Biden acknowledged the start of the Armenian genocide by Ottomans in Turkey, Saturday. On April 24, 1915, “with the arrest of Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople by Ottoman authorities, one and a half million Armenians were deported, massacred, or marched to their deaths in a campaign of extermination,” Biden said in a statement released Saturday. Even acknowledging the genocide has been a sensitive subject for modern Turkey for much of the last century, as previous American presidents have refrained from criticizing the United States’ closest ally in the region. 

Note: Raising the longstanding controversy clearly is easier now, with long-time Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan running what most consider an authoritarian regime. Nevertheless, Erdogan quickly responded to Biden’s statement, calling for opening Turkey’s national archives and for a “joint historical committee” to investigate the validity of the U.S. president’s remarks, Newsweek reports. –Edited by Todd Lassa and Gary S. Vasilash

_____

The objective of The Hustings is to have political discourse — not those Molotov cocktails thrown back and forth on Facebook and Twitter, “arguments” that are simply tantrums — between thoughtful people. So we would like you to comment on the topics being examined here on the site. What we would like to have is a sufficient number of comments—from both sides—such that we can post them on a weekly basis. Whether you want to provide a sentence or a paragraph, all that we ask is that you be reasoned and respectful. To comment, scroll to the bottom of this page, or email editors@thehustings.news.

Conservative opinion on the center column news appears here. Scroll down with the trackbar on the right corner of this page to read:

•Stephen Macaulay, The Hustings' centrist pundit-at-large, comments on President Biden's plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan by September 11, from the right column.

•Comments by "affirmative" debaters on the resolution: Deficit spending is a major risk to the U.S. economy. Special coverage of a Braver Angels national debate (braverangels.org).

•Stephen Macaulay discusses President Biden's commission to study whether the U.S. Supreme Court should be expanded by up to 13 justices.

•Does President Biden's infrastructure plan have a chance of Senate passage? Bryan Williams comments from the right column.

•Alleghany County Day of Civility debate, Resolved: Should government provide health care coverage for all citizens? Negative debaters' comments are on the right.

_____
Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

By David Amaya

Walk the streets of Manhattan, and you will see the bustling of determined faces getting from one skyscraper to another. The only conspicuous worrisome sign is the face masks they wear for the health of ourselves and others. The most solemn period of mourning a change in New York City's population and the skyline is behind us. The Nation has grieved past the need for anger and vengeance from the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center by al-Qaida. President Biden is justified in bringing back home our military men from Afghanistan because as commander-in-chief, he acknowledges that the reason America went into the country 20 years ago is not the same as the reason we are in Afghanistan 20 years later. 

Former President Donald Trump agreed with the Taliban to pull U.S. forces out of Afghanistan beginning May 1, 2021. If we are to show deference to American governance, we as Americans must accept the diplomatic decisions made by our head of state with others of the same status. Americans should not change diplomatic agreements retroactively, nor should they be thought to be null with foresight. 

As the president of one of the most salient times in American history, Biden's decision to pull out of Afghanistan shows a seminal shift of our nation's priorities regarding international relations (IR). Biden IR respects the outcomes of the previous Presidential term. Still, he also is not committed to an "America First" ideology that neglects the obligation to our allies and neighbors who seek U.S. assistance. Diplomatic and humanitarian aid will remain in Afghanistan, but they will be there without the "boots and straps" of armed U.S. forces.

Although the past 20 years of U.S. presence in Afghanistan has come to shape our foreign policy attitudes, no desired outcome is manifest other than the termination of Osama Bin Laden a decade ago. Hundreds of thousands of Afghan troops have been trained by the United States since then – more than enough to combat Afghanistan's domestic terrorism. As President Biden addressed the nation regarding his decision to remove our troops, Afghanistan has the right and responsibility to lead its own country. U.S. military presence will not create a durable and sustaining Afghan government. President Biden's decision is a welcomed return to Wilsonian foreign policy after four years of reckless "America First" policy. 

_____
Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

By Todd Lassa

Declare victory and withdraw. It worked for President Richard M. Nixon in January 1973 when he announced U.S. troops would leave Vietnam. Two years later, with Nixon having resigned over Watergate, the South Vietnam we fought for fell to the communist Viet Cong and it was left to Gerald Ford to order remaining personnel and diplomatic corps out of Hanoi.

The U.S. involvement in Vietnam began with “advisors” circa 1955, so there was American presence for 20 years. Our tenure in Afghanistan began under President George W. Bush, who sent troops to Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Even then, there were fair warnings about staying too long. Take care of the Taliban as quickly as possible and get out of the physically rough, mountainous Central Asian nation that had held against the Soviet invasion a decade earlier. (Some analysts credit the Soviet Union’s decade in Afghanistan for depleting its military sufficiently for it to have to concede the Cold War. It must also be said that the U.S. had had troops, currently about 23,500, in South Korea since 1957, four years after the armistice with North Korea; and has had major military presences in Japan and Germany since after World War II.)

President Biden  announced plans to withdraw the remaining 2,500 American troops from Afghanistan by September 11, the 20^th anniversary of the terrorist attacks. 

The two schools of thought on this are a.) it’s way past time, as Biden’s old boss, President Barack Obama wanted the U.S. to leave and then President Trump promised withdrawal; and b.) it will leave Afghanistan’s local government exposed once again to the Taliban, waiting in the wings. Let’s try to negotiate a full peace, first.

So we have the unusual situation of Biden’s predecessor offering damning praise for the September 11 plan, while the current president’s military advisors appear to be opposed.

“Getting out of Afghanistan is a wonderful and positive thing to do,” former President Trump said in a prepared statement. “I planned to withdraw on May 1^st, and we should keep as close to that schedule as possible.”

Biden’s own military commanders disagree, according to The Wall Street Journal. The president’s top generals, consisting of Gen. Frank McKenzie, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, Gen. Austin “Scott” Miller, leader of NATO forces in Afghanistan and Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, urged him to consider holding all 2,500 troops in-country while the State department tried to negotiate a peace deal, the Journal reports, quoting unnamed officials. 

Defense Sec. Lloyd Austin, a retired military commander who served in the region “shared the concerns of senior officers, cautioning that withdrawing all U.S. troops” would “suspend … an insurance policy for maintaining a modicum of stability” in Afghanistan, the newspaper reported. Biden is said to have weighed the generals’ and his defense secretary’s opinions, but concluded it was time to end America’s longest war engagement. 

After nearly 20 years in Afghanistan, there is no way for President Biden to satisfy both side of the argument, no way to stay long enough to cure the country’s ills and yet find a way out, and there is no way to declare victory before leaving.

UPDATE: The Taliban has withdrawn from peace talks with the Afghanistan government that were scheduled to occur in Istanbul, Turkey, NPR reports. They were said to be unhappy with President Biden's delay of a U.S. withdrawal to September 11, from former President Trump's original date of May 1.

---

Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

By Stephen Macaulay

In one regard, it is about symbolism.

Joe Biden will have the U.S. troops—about 3,000 of them—leave Afghanistan on September 11, 2021, the twentieth anniversary of the attack on the U.S. homeland by terrorists.

A primary reason why U.S. troops had been sent to Afghanistan (and Iraq, from which the U.S. troop withdrawal occurred in 2011) was because of the threat of terrorists to the U.S. homeland.

Have the terrorists been defeated? No.

Can the terrorists ever be defeated? Probably not.

So what’s the solution? Leave and cross your fingers?

There is a position that is being taken in support of Biden’s move that says that U.S. involvement has been going on far too long and so we’ve got to put a period at the end of that sentence.

One of the few cases where Lindsay Graham stopped being a lickspittle to the Former Guy was when said Former Guy decided that he’d pull the troops out in May. Graham knew then, as he knows now, that this is a short-sighted move. 

War in the 21^st century is a different thing. There aren’t clear lines. There aren’t people on both sides wearing uniforms with insignias.

It is hit and run. The other guys don’t play by the rules. They are terrorists, not “enemy combatants” in the traditional sense.

Biden had said as part of his justification for the forthcoming departure, “our reasons for remaining in Afghanistan are becoming increasingly unclear.”

There are still terrorists there. Terrorists who don’t like the West in general, and probably the U.S., in particular. Fairly clear, isn’t it?

Biden said that the U.S. went into Afghanistan in 2001 “to ensure Afghanistan would not be used as a base from which to attack our homeland again.”

He added, “We did that. We accomplished that objective.”

Huh?

Biden went on to say, “With the terror threat now in many places, keeping thousands of troops grounded and concentrated in just one country at a cost of billions each year makes little sense to me and to our leaders.  We cannot continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in Afghanistan, hoping to create ideal conditions for the withdrawal, and expecting a different result.”

Let’s see. There are other threats, too. So let’s pull out the troops from one place where the threat is theoretically no longer that scary and, what, put them somewhere else?

Or is this simply an economic move (“a cost of billions each year”), the Former Guy’s rationale for all things military?

What if something goes south in Afghanistan in, say, January 2022? What then? Put troops back in? How much will that cost, after the currently existing military infrastructure is dismantled?

Twenty years seems to be a long time to Americans. But “endless”?

There is probably not a good solution to the situation in Afghanistan. But leaving doesn’t seem like a solution. It seems like the lack of one.

It is also symbolic of the U.S.’s impatience.

_____
Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

The first negative speaker (arguing against the resolution) in the Braver Angels debate, Garrett Neaves, argued to disabuse the notion made by most deficit hawks that the federal government should act like an American household, and endeavor to spend no more money than it takes in. Rather, he said, federal spending should follow the precepts of early 20^th Century economist John Maynard Keynes. 

“Deficit spending by our government is almost always essential to avoid causing a recession,” Neaves said. "And because every dollar being spent is also a dollar of income to someone receiving that dollar, whenever a dollar is being saved rather than spent, someone is not getting that dollar as income."

Neaves said that the federal government is not like a household, but more like a scorekeeper, deciding who should receive tax money. Deficit spending is the foundation of an economy based on fiat currency. The U.S. dollar only has value because the nation’s citizens must have them to pay income taxes. 

On household spending versus federal spending, he said "In order to be responsible for ourselves, we need to be good savers, and in order to avoid a recession, we need there to be enough spending." 

It’s an economic theory that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt employed to pull the U.S. economy out of the Great Depression but found its nemesis in 1981 when Ronald Reagan took office and preached the theory of supply-side economics, which posits that job creation is made by private employers and not the government, and therefore tax cuts for employers is the way to grow employment and stem any economic downturns.

But recessions and economic downturns in general lead everyone in an economy to hold on to their savings. That leaves only the government to willingly flow more money back into the economy by spending on federal and state programs and pay for it by printing cash or buying up its own bonds. 

"Our federal government is nothing like a household," Neaves continued. "The federal government is our monopoly creator of dollars. We can decide to have our federal government spend as much as is necessary to allow us to save as much as we want without causing a recession."

Neaves made the distinction between the often-confused federal deficit and debt. In short, the deficit is the difference between the taxes and other revenues the government takes in over a fiscal year and the amount it spends on myriad programs in that same year. Federal debt is the accumulation of years of deficits when they are not paid off, usually by printing cash (an inflation risk) and/or buying back its own bonds. "Deficit and debt fear has been a highly dominant weapon used to manipulate us for the 50 years," he said.

Under Q&A, Neaves was asked why re-institution of the gold standard wouldn’t work. 

“The gold standard was a choice,” he replied. “The government issues currency, and the currency has a real and tangible value.”

Another question regarded government-issued bonds during World War II.

“I think we should use bonds to achieve public purpose,” Neaves replied. “Bonds were sold to regulate people so they wouldn’t buy refrigerators and cars” as the factories that otherwise assembled consumer goods converted to the war effort. “Because they were sacrificing by not buying cars, they should get a return (from bond interest) for the sacrifice.”

The second negative debater, Ethan Ableman, works in Washington reading the texts of appropriation bills, and says deficits are necessary for expenditures that fall outside the boundaries of such spending bills. 

“Unlike the federal budget, nearly every single state has a balanced budget requirement.” State legislatures find it next to impossible politically to raise taxes to pay for budget shortfalls, so they have to cut spending to such necessities as infrastructure and public schools. Pandemics, natural disasters and other emergencies fall outside both federal and state budgets, with “part of the federal budget set aside, but only so much” for such agencies as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Ableman said.

“If Congress had to balance the budget during the pandemic, people would have died (as a result) for sure.” Operation Warp Speed, for example, former President Trump’s effort to speed up approval of COVID-19 vaccines, cost $10 billion in deficit spending. 

“Even if we don’t like the monetary theory, there are times when the government needs to spend large amounts of money very quickly,” the second negative concluded.

_____
Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

Should the federal government be as fiscally responsible as the average American household about spending more than it takes in? Supply Siders, Keynesians and at least one young debater speaking for a post-cash economy discussed, in a very civil manner, the meaning and weight of a federal deficit on the U.S. economy on Zoom Thursday night. 

In debate-speak, affirmatives are speakers who are in favor of the resolution and negatives are against it. For this resolution, affirmatives believe deficit spending is a major risk, while negatives believe it is not a big problem.

Braver Angels’ (braverangels.org) was founded in late 2016 to “bring Americans together to bridge the partisan divide and strengthen our democratic agenda.” Sounds more than a bit like the philosophy that drives The Hustings as a political news website. This post on the Braver Angels debate presents the opening arguments by the four scheduled debaters on the subject of federal deficit spending. 

Arguments by affirmatives for the resolution are in the right column. Arguments by negatives for the resolution are in the left column.

•••

What is your position on the resolution: “Deficit spending is a major risk to the U.S. economy”? Let us know at editors@thehustings.news.

_____
For more information on Braver Angels, go to braverangels.org

Affirmative John R. Dykers led off the scheduled Braver Angels debaters with a moderate, balanced view of the place of federal budget deficits in the modern economy. (Affirmatives argue in favor of the debate resolution.)

“It is likely that we can all agree that this is always the discussion. There must always be a balance of the problems on which we are spending the money, (which) must also be balanced against the tolerance of those who lend the money through the bond market,” he said. “If spending makes us as a nation a more effective producer of goods and services, and a more effective entity to repay the money,” and the spending creates more income to be taxed, then the circular nature of such spending is worthwhile.

This circular nature of the economy – the “multiplier effect” – only works if the deficit spending doesn’t overheat the economy and trigger high levels of inflation, which the U.S. has not experienced through several cycles, well before The Great Recession of 2009-10.

While deficit hawks often point to the portion of debt held by China, for example, it is not one of Dykers’ serious concerns. Japan holds about 5%, and China slightly less than 5% of our debt through bonds, he notes, while other countries hold about 30% with the rest held in the U.S. (by financial institutions and largely through 401Ks, by individuals). In the Q&A, moderated parliamentary style by debate chair Luke Nathan Phillips, Dykers was asked, “How do you know when you’ve spent too much?” 

Interest rates and bond prices, Dykers responded. When interest rates go up and bond prices go down, it’s a sign that we’re in for high inflation and an overheated economy that could result in high unemployment and financial pain for many Americans.

But, he added, “it’s so complex, it’s hard to know when that happens.”

Despite trillions of dollars of coronavirus relief programs through the Trump administration and to President Biden’s $1.9-trillion American Relief Plan Act (ARPA) and proposed $2.3-trillion infrastructure package, the Federal Reserve’s target rate for interest remained in March at an historical low, of 0%-0.25%. 

“We’re now such a global economy that inflation pressures are now down from when we were a local economy,” he said. “Often this is signaled by the bond market.”

The second of the two affirmative speakers for the resolution, software engineer Bett Bollhoefer, argued from the point of view of younger generations who are looking forward to a post-cash economy. 

“It’s not a major risk for the economy,” Bollhoefer said. “It’s a major risk for the citizens.” Her peers are “looking for places to put their money” with returns “higher than inflation.” 

In other words, crypto-currency, like Bitcoin appears to be the future. Currency by fiat, such as the U.S. dollar has no inherent value. Cash is through with, she posits, and this is what her peers looking for a currency of value greater than inflation are saying.

Bollhoefer likened recent quantitative easing – in which the Federal Reserve bought up government bonds in order to push more money back into the economy for consumer spending – to “giving every citizen a (currency) printer.” 

But deficit spending would build infrastructure projects and improvements “that we’ve been ignoring for years,” one debate audience member maintained.

“If the government is spending money for infrastructure, then the money has to come from somewhere,” Bollhoefer replied.

Opening arguments by the affirmative debaters didn’t fall closely in line with those of traditional deficit hawks, but the Braver Angels audience-member debaters, whom The Hustings will cover in the next post this weekend, will provide a more hard-line point of view.

_____
Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

By Chase Wheaton

President Biden recently upheld what is probably one of his most contentious campaign promises by establishing a commission of 36 experts and scholars to study the Supreme Court, and while conservatives may be up-in-arms about what this could mean for the future of the Court, progressives are relieved that we may finally see some long overdue change to this powerful institution. And although, personally, I am not expecting much tangible reform to come from either this commission or the Biden administration, it is nevertheless a step in the right direction and proof of the impact that progressive ideologies have had on President Biden’s agenda and his priorities in office.

The Supreme Court is arguably the most powerful body of people in our country when you consider the “terms and conditions” of their appointments and their role in our government. The Court is made up of a group of nine people who are appointed to their positions for the remainder of their lives, who are not overseen or held accountable by any other agency, group, or election process, and who have the authority to deem any federal law, statute, or code as unconstitutional with a single metaphorical stroke of their pens. Some of the most historic and significant changes in our country have resulted from decisions made by the Supreme Court, and while many of those have been positive and have contributed to the overall progress of our nation, the dangerous ideologies of the Trump-era Republican party, and presumably, its judiciary appointees, leave millions of Americans in fear that many of their human rights will be eliminated in future decisions made by the Court.

Some Republicans may view that last statement as an exaggeration, but I don’t think the Republican party is in a position to make any sort of commentary about the Supreme Court given how they’ve approached the judicial branch of our government over the last five years. To me, it is the pinnacle of hypocrisy that conservatives are upset about President Biden’s approach to this judicial reform, considering they’ve made a complete mockery of the rules and precedents of the judicial appointment process the last few years, particularly in relation to the Supreme Court. Since Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-KY, as majority leader blocked former President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Court, Republicans, at every turn, have collectively done whatever best suits their own interests and motives to successfully create a 6-3 conservative majority. And now they’re upset that the president is establishing a commission to simply explore the potential impacts of judicial reform? Unbelievable. 

Either way, regardless of the current makeup, I think it’s time for much-needed change to the Supreme Court’s structure. There haven’t been any meaningful attempts at reforming SCOTUS since FDR last tried in the mid-1930s, nearly 90 years ago, and you’d be hard-pressed to convince me that the judicial needs of our country haven’t changed significantly since then. For now, I’ll begin my 180-day countdown and wait to read what exactly this commission comes up with, and what it’ll mean for the future of the highest court in the land, before I get too carried away fantasizing about the possibility of real judicial progress and change.

_____
Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

By Todd Lassa

Perhaps more than any other policy issue that the Democratic Party’s progressive-left is pushing on a moderate White House, the 36-member bi-partisan commission announced in April to study structural changes to the U.S. Supreme Court seems foisted upon President Biden. Consider that he carefully backed away from questions during last year’s presidential campaign from committing to an expansion of the Court beyond its nine justices. At the time, the Democratic candidate repeated several times that he is “not a fan” of court-stacking.

Since then, two progressive, though senior, well-established congress members, Sen. Ed Markey, D-MA, and Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-NY, have introduced a bill to increase the SCOTUS bench to 13 justices. (It will go nowhere with the current Senate makeup.)

And why shouldn’t Biden stack the Court, from Democrats’ point of view? The last Supreme Court justice appointed by a Republican president who won the popular vote was George W. Bush’s choice, Samuel Alito, who took the bench in January 2006. The last Senate-approved Democratic appointee was Elena Kagan, who has served since August 2010, just 21 months into President Barack Obama’s first term. 

Since then, former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, has blocked Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antony Scalia, and has pushed through Trump administration nominees Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barret, the latter of which took the bench replacing Ruth Bader Ginsberg against her dying wish, just one week before Donald Trump lost re-election. 

Now his party’s left wants Biden to push through an extra justice or four, as Franklin Delano Roosevelt had tried in his first term as president. While FDR’s attempt, though made possible by the Constitution, failed miserably, Democratic forces now have great fear that a.) Democrat’s tie-breaker-thin Senate control will disappear with the November 2022 mid-terms, and b.) the next chance it gets the Roberts court will overturn Roe vs. Wade, or at least enough of it to make it functionally useless, by 6-3 vote. 

One alternative would be for Justice Stephen Breyer, 82, to step down well before the mid-terms and give the Senate a chance to approve Biden’s nominee (as with Kagan, Breyer’s replacement would amount to a Democratic nominee for a Democratic nominee). Party leaders have been pressuring for that since Biden took office. 

Senate Republicans engaged the “nuclear option” and eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations in 2017, making it possible to confirm a nominee with only 51 votes (Senate Democrats eliminated the judicial filibuster for all but the top court in 2013).

Biden’s bi-partisan commission, announced April 9, consists of 36 legal scholars, former federal judges and practicing attorneys, according to The Washington Post. The president has given the commission 180 days to produce a report, which makes it due October 6, two days after the Supremes return from summer recess for the new court calendar. 

Theoretically, Breyer could bow to pressure and announce his retirement in time for a Biden nominee to matriculate through the confirmation process by early 2022, although it must be noted that there cannot be a nominee as liberal as Trump’s three nominees are conservative, if the White House wants to count on the votes of Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin III, of West Virginia, and Krysten Sinema, of Arizona, to assure a majority. 

More importantly, Biden has not charged the bi-partisan commission with the task of issuing recommendations, “but rather,” the Post reports, “providing an analysis of a range of proposed changes to the court.” There are no expectations that President Joe “not a fan” Biden might act on any proposals in time to add Supreme Court justices before the ’22 mid-terms. 

_____
Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

By Stephen Macaulay

Biden said, while running for office, that he’d establish a commission to look at the Supreme Court. So he’s established a commission: the “Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States.”

Certainly a descriptive title.

The White House describes it as being a “bipartisan group of experts on the Court and the Court reform debate.”

There are 36 people on the commission. One of the problems that I see with it is that 35 of those people are all employed by universities. Sherrilyn Ifill is president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund. She is the only one not lecturing or having a TA teach while otherwise engaged.

Not that I am anti-education.

But wouldn’t it be better to have more people who make their livelihoods by practicing law? Yes, many of the people on the commission have appeared many times in front of judges, even Supreme Court judges. But people who are making their daily bread by working briefs undoubtedly think differently about what the issues are than people who are getting a paycheck from an Ivy League school.

And another thing: 36 people? At some point meetings are going to be face-to-face meetings, not things occurring on Zoom. Thirty-six people.

A major league baseball team has 26 players and there are only nine in the game at any one time.

Thirty-six is rather, well, organizationally silly.

Oh, and I failed to mention that there will be public meetings as part of this so more people can chime in.

Something tells me there isn’t going to be a whole lot of substance.

So what is the purpose of this commission?

“The topics it will examine include the genesis of the reform debate; the Court’s role in the Constitutional system; the length of service and turnover of justices on the Court; the membership and size of the Court; and the Court’s case selection, rules, and practices.”

Let’s be clear here. The whole point of this exercise was originally promulgated because one Party thinks that there is too much influence on the Court on behalf of the Other Party.

Who’s who can be switched around depending on who holds the presidency and Congress.

To stick with the baseball metaphor, when an ump makes a bad call, there is a chorus of “Throw the bum out!”

Same thing here.

While there is no denying the importance of the Third Branch, it is notable how little space its establishment takes in the Constitution: Article III, Section 1, opens, “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

That’s it.

And as for the lifetime appointments? That goes to the second sentence of the same: “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.”

In other words, as long as they’re exhibiting “good behaviour,” they’ve got a job.

(By the way, those two quoted sentences make up the entirety of Article III, Section 1.)

The number of people on the Court?

Nowhere is it specified.

It is largely a case of tradition.

Arguably tradition is losing ground in the U.S. (and elsewhere), and more’s the pity for it.

Conservatives — real ones, not those who claim to hold conservative values then support people who fly in the face of them — think tradition has value.

Values, arguably, are losing ground in the U.S. (and elsewhere) and more’s the pity for it.

I maintain that the “Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States” will write a comprehensive, meticulously footnoted document that will be filed on a shelf in a building somewhere that is analogous to the warehouse at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

This commission, however, will have a negative effect. People who have no greater knowledge about the judicial system beyond repeated watching of Matlock are going to maintain that the politicians have corrupted the Court.

And when people stop believing in something that is far from perfect but still good, we have a serious problem.

_____
Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

Affirmatives arguing for the resolution, “Should government provide health care for all citizens?” took a full, universal coverage position in Thursday evening’s Allegany County Day of Civility debate, which means they favor a single-payer system that would not eliminate private health insurance for those willing to pay.

“In America, it has been proven the better your income, the better your health,” argued Jessica Thayer, lead-off affirmative and president of Frostburg State University’s debate club. Health outcomes have “ties with other issues in society,” most notably poverty versus wealth, and race. 

Between 2011 and 2013, 38% of families earning less than $22,500 per year reported being in fair or poor health, while only 12% of those earning $47,000 or more reported the same, Thayer said, and the uninsured rate by 2018 was 9.7% of Black Americans, versus 4.7% of white Americans. Several states, she said, still have not accepted the Medicaid expansion made possible by the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act.

Meanwhile, the biggest supporter of the health care industry, according to Thayer, the fast-food industry, concentrates drive-through restaurants and convenience stores in poor neighborhoods. 

“Counties with poverty rates of more than 35% have obesity rates 145% greater than wealthy counties,” she said. “Universal health care can ultimately be the only thing standing between life and death for people in poverty.” Thayer added that “universal participation causes no compromises or deterioration of rights.”

During cross-examination in the parliamentary-style debate, negative debater Isadore Johnson pointed to inequalities in such universal care systems as those in England and Israel. 

“We are an extremely wealthy country with great inequality,” Thayer responded. “The poor are left with absolutely no choice at all.” She added that, while universal health care here would not necessarily level the playing field, it would be an improvement over the poor having “no choice at all.”

Brent Thomas asked Johnson whether he would accept subsidized health care as a reasonable alternative.

“It is possible and would be less-bad than universal health care, but would be less good than private insurance,” he replied. Obamacare attempted that, Johnson continued, but was unsuccessful.

The second affirmative in the debate, Logan Carlile of the FSU debate club, noted that the federal government has tried to address the old, sick and poor since the 1930s, and indirectly countered negative debater Johnson’s citation of a long waiting list at the Phoenix VA hospital, saying the Veterans Administration health care has an overall approval rating of more than 80%. 

A system based on for-profit health care is “immoral, leaving people without proper treatment,” Carlile said, noting that 31 million Americans have no health insurance coverage, and 2 million citizens per year die without coverage.

“What would happen to health care insurance?” asked an audience member identified as “H Sack.”

It would not be eliminated as an option, Carlile maintained, though the “middle-class pays a large portion of its income toward premiums.”

FSU debate team secretary Delanie Blubaugh, the third affirmative, spoke of three countries that have had success with universal coverage; Australia, Canada and Brazil. 

All three co-exist with private health care options. In Australia, for example, private insurance pays for faster services for non-emergencies, and the country’s system is decentralized, with a high degree of social participation. 

From the audience, Sierra Widmar asked, “How would universal health care affect the cost people are paying?”

“Consider public health care as equivalent to public education,” Blubaugh responded. 

Lauren Nordquist, the final affirmative, also an FSU debate team member, asserted that “medical costs, in general, would significantly decrease,” to balance the cost of higher income taxes that would pay for the service. Further offset would come from more healthy people able to produce and consume a capitalist economy. But when Kendall Kidwell, a debate audience member, asked whether the federal government might choose specific treatments for those covered by a single-payer plan, Nordquist left that issue open for criticism from the negative side.

“It is possible for one mandated procedure to be chosen,” she replied.

Annette Ritter wrapped up the affirmative-side position on government-provided health care for all citizens – universal care – with this: “The U.S. does not have a health care system. It has a health insurance system.”

_____
Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news