Clarence Thomas

Republican “Beards”: Tim Scott, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley

Ronald Leave a comment

The Republican Party is using its “beards” to try to convince voters of minority groups (African American, Hispanic and Latino, Asian American), which voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, that the party of heavily white, rural, and older voters is really concerned about equal opportunity and justice for them, a total lie!

So therefore, Tim Scott, the right wing African American Congressman from South Carolina, is being touted as a replacement for Senator Jim DeMint, who is leaving to head the Heritage Foundation. Scott is so extremist that he could be seen as the equivalent of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, who is despised by a vast majority of the African American population, and even if Scott is appointed to the Senate to replace DeMint, the chance of him convincing the black community, which voted for Barack Obama by about 95 percent, that he is legitimately interested in their welfare and advancement, is miniscule!

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas may be Cuban American, but even their ethnic group voted about 52 percent for Obama, and 71 percent of all Hispanics and Latinos (with only 3 percent being Cuban, as compared to 65 percent being Mexican), voted for the President. So the odds that either Rubio or Cruz is going to be able to convince those of Spanish speaking descent to become Republican, after the anti immigrant campaign of Mitt Romney, and the Republican heritage of standing against immigration reform (with the exception of George W. Bush and John McCain), is really a stretch of one’s delusional thinking!

And the fact that two Asian (from India heritage) Republicans, Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina, are nationally known figures, does not mean that those of any Asian heritage, including from the Far East, are going to vote Republican, when 73 percent of Asian Americans voted for Obama. This is another example of total hallucination by the Republican leadership!

All that Scott, Rubio, Cruz, Jindal, and Haley represent are politicians of specific ethnic backgrounds who have spent their adult lives resisting the needs, wants, and views of the vast majority of their own groups! They are “traitors” to the best interests of groups that have long been ignored and ridiculed by Republican power figures!

So they are acting as “beards”, spreading false propaganda that the Republican Party is the party that people of their heritage should support in the future, but as long as they promote the hateful, divisive rhetoric and philosophies of the extremist right wing, they might continue in office as oddities, but they will not succeed in transforming people of minority heritage to large percentages becoming loyal to the Republican heritage of nativism and exclusionary behavior!

The REAL Issues Of 2012 That Are Being Ignored In The Presidential Campaign

Ronald Leave a comment

If one follows the Presidential campaign of 2012, one would think that ONLY the economy matters.

YES, the economy matters, but the newest jobs report demonstrates that this nation is on the mend, and that over the next Presidential term, the economy will recover, with some experts saying that up to 12 million jobs will be created, whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney wins the White House on Tuesday.

Others would say the danger of Iran is the major issue, but even on that, it is clear that both Obama and Romney would react similarly to an actual Iranian attack on Israel or any other part of the Middle East.

So the REAL issues are not the economy or Iran!

Instead, they are the following, although ignored in campaign rhetoric:

Climate Change or Global Warming—the reality of it, as demonstrated yet again by Hurricane Sandy, and the need to take the lead in moving away from oil and coal as the major energy resources. But, of course, Republicans and conservatives deny the reality of this threat, and the oil and coal industries do everything they can to protect themselves at the expense of the nation in the long run.

Gun Violence—as demonstrated by what happened so many times in the past few years, including Tucson, Arizona in 2011 to Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords; the mass murders in the Aurora, Colorado movie complex in 2012; the constant murders in cities such as Chicago, often ignored because the victims are African Americans; and so many other cases. And again, the Republicans and conservatives fight any type of gun control, and allow the National Rifle Association to hold America hostage.

Education—the dire need to promote more people attending and graduating four year colleges and universities. Many would say that having a four year degree does not guarantee that one gets the job he wants or needs. While that is true, the unemployment figures make clear that those with a four year degree or more have an unemployment rate under FOUR percent, while those with less education or dropping out of school have an unemployment rate of TWELVE percent! Is there any evidence other than this to convince parents and children of the urgency of getting an education through a four year degree? And besides, there are intangibles other than just getting a degree for a job, such as improving one’s basic skills of reading, writing, and speaking, and improving one’s mind and knowledge; making one a better person in social situations and parent situations; and raising people up from ignorance, conspiracy theory beliefs, and over reliance on religious doctrine, which unfortunately makes many people unwilling to reason for themselves, and just accept gospel as absolute fact. And of course, Republicans and conservatives argue against extra funding and assistance for education, and would prefer to lean on organized religion to “control” the masses, keep them ignorant, and willing, therefore, to accept ideas without questioning or challenge!

The Supreme Court—not understood by many for the important role it plays, and will continue to play, and the urgency of having a President who will select nominees who wish to look to the future, and not the past, and prevent regression politically, socially, and economically back to the Gilded Age and the 1920s. The Republicans and conservatives and Mitt Romney want more Antonin Scalias, Clarence Thomases, and Samuel Alitos, to insure that we go backward for the next 30 years! So the election of Barack Obama is urgent for the future of constitutional law and the preservation of the advancements of the Earl Warren and Warren Burger Supreme Courts.

These issues mentioned above SHOULD be understood before people, who have not voted before Tuesday, vote for our next President, and the best decision for any sane individual is to vote for the candidate who represents a willingness to deal with the future, President Barack Obama!

Arlen Specter, A Senate Giant, Leaves Behind A Complicated Legacy As He Dies At Age 82

Ronald 1 Comment

Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, who died today at age 82, was, without a doubt, a Senate giant, who leaves behind a complicated legacy.

Specter was a Democrat in Philadelphia, turned a Republican, and then, at the end of his career, a Democrat again!

Specter was a liberal Republican who became a moderate, but fought against the conservative trend in his party.

Specter was one of the most influential Jewish Senators in American history, ranking on the level of New York Senator Jacob Javits, Connecticut Senator Abraham Ribicoff, Ohio Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Michigan Senator Carl Levin, New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg, Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl, California Senator Dianne Feinstein, California Senator Barbara Boxer, Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone, and New York Senator Charles Schumer. Only Javits was a Republican, other than Specter.

Specter was a giant figure on the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, involved in 14 Supreme Court nomination battles, including the stopping of Robert Bork, and the defense of Clarence Thomas, and the impeachment controversy surrounding President Bill Clinton.

Specter was a prickly, ornery individual, who did not suffer fools very well, whether Senate colleagues or constituents, and became a major critic of the mindless Tea Party Movement in the Republican Party after the election of President Barack Obama.

Specter lost his seat in the Senate after 30 years, when he backed President Obama on health care, and switched back to the Democratic Party, giving them, for a brief period, a 60 member filibuster proof majority in the US Senate.

Specter was seen as a man of principle, but also an opportunist, who gained many enemies all over the political spectrum.

Specter was a key figure in the Warren Commission investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy, being on the staff of the commission, and promoting the viewpoint of a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, which became the official viewpoint of the Warren Commission, a viewpoint he never backed away from, despite the many conspiracy theories.

Specter may have been a “loner” in many ways, but in the thirty years he was in the US Senate, he gained a lot of respect and stature as one of its giant figures, who could not be ignored, overlooked, or mistreated, as he would always fight back, including his two courageous battles with cancer in his last decade.

Arlen Specter is a person who historians will have to wrestle with to understand American politics and history in the 1980s, 1990s, and the early 21st century! His effect on so many areas and issues will be a goldmine for scholars in the future, trying to decipher the controversies and issues going back even to the 1960s!

May Arlen Specter rest in peace, knowing he had a great impact on his nation that will not be forgotten!

The Supreme Court: The MOST Crucial Issue In The Presidential Election Of 2012!

Ronald Leave a comment

Plenty of attention is being paid to economic and domestic policy in the Presidential campaign of 2012.

Also, now with the Middle East crisis that erupted this week, foreign policy is, suddenly, being given tremendous emphasis.

It is right that attention is being paid to both areas of national policy, as they really matter!

But an area which still is NOT being focused on adequately, if in fact at all, is the effect of the election on constitutional matters, which are determined primarily by the Supreme Court of the United States, along with the federal circuit courts.

First, the circuit courts consistently have vacancies, even in a one term Presidency, which can have a dramatic effect on constitutional law. Also, it must be remembered that the tradition has been to appoint Supreme Court Justices from this level of the judiciary, although that was certainly not the norm in the long history of the Supreme Court.

Ultimately, however, it is the Supreme Court which is the final arbiter of the Constitution, as the nine members of the Court, once they have made a determination, rule the day, unless a constitutional amendment can be passed to overrule a Supreme Court decision, or the members of the Court, through changes of personnel, decide to revisit areas of controversy already decided by an earlier Court.

After a decade of no changes on the Court, from 1995 to 2005, suddenly, in a period of five years, from 2005-2010, there were four changes on the Court–Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005 and Associate Justice Samuel Alito in 2006 under President George W. Bush; and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor in 2009 and Associate Justice Elena Kagan in 2010 under President Barack Obama.

Now in 2012, there are four Justices in their 70s, who are seen as possible or likely retirees from the Court over the next four years—Associate Justice Antonin Scalia (76), appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986; Associate Justice Anothony Kennedy (76), appointed by Reagan in 1988; Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg (79), appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1993; and Associate Justice Stephen Breyer (73), appointed by Clinton in 1994.

By the end of the next term, if none of these four Justices left the Court, they would range in age from 77 to 83!

It seems certain that one or more will retire, or unfortunately, die, in the next four years, and who is appointing their successors, is all important for the future of constitutional law!

If Obama makes one to four appointments, it will, at the least, keep the present balance, slightly toward the conservative side, but if Mitt Romney makes the choices, it could make the Court more conservative, more to the right, than it has been since at least the 1920s, if not the Gilded Age of the late 19th century!

This is NOT a minor matter, considering the areas of criminal justice, affirmative action, abortion, gay rights, and the constitutionality of laws passed under the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society of the 1960s, and recent actions on health care, campaign fund raising, and many other touchy, controversial areas of policy, and of civil rights and civil liberties!

The Court could turn back a century of political, social and economic reforms, if it turns in the direction of the far Right, a danger with Mitt Romney in office!

We can expect that by 2020, if not 2016, all of the members of the Court will be those appointed in the previous 15 years, with the possible exception of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas (64), appointed by President George H. W. Bush in 1991, and stating he would not retire or leave the Supreme Court until he breaks the all time record of Associate Justice William O. Douglas, appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939, and serving 36 years on the Court under seven Presidents, until he left in 1975!

So this issue needs to be addressed in the Presidential debates in October, as it is an issue for voters to consider, and to recognize its significance!

Reality: No Balanced Budget For Long Time, And National Debt Will Continue To Rise!

Ronald Leave a comment

In the midst of all the debates about who is “better” for the country, the team of Democrats Barack Obama and Joe Biden, or the team of Republicans Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, something is being forgotten or ignored!

There will be no balanced budget for a long time, and the national debt will continue to rise!

There is no magic potion to bring about a balanced budget, or to prevent the national debt from rising!

So whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney is elected, one will see both the budget issue and the national debt issue continue to be a center of heated debate!

The difference is who will “benefit” from what government does–the middle class and the poor, if Obama wins; or the wealthy top two percent if Romney wins!

But it is more than that!

It is also which man will cause the national defense budget and foreign interventions to grow, adding to our burden, and it is clear that Mitt Romney, with his loose, reckless rhetoric toward Iran, Russia and China, will cause us a lot more financial burden and many more lost American military lives than Barack Obama!

And it is also what direction do we want the nation to go regarding constitutional law! Do we want more Antonin Scalias, Clarence Thomases, and Samuel Alitos? Or do we want more Ruth Bader Ginsbergs, Stephen Breyers, Sonia Sotomayors, and Elena Kagans? This will determine more of the future, economically and socially, than anything else!

It is foreign policy and constitutional law, two areas most people are ignoring, that will have a greater impact on our future than the false argument that, somehow, one or the other candidate for President will, magically, balance the budget, or stop the rise in the national debt, when neither will be able to do anything about either of those matters!

Will Chief Justice John Roberts Be In The Tradition Of John Marshall, Charles Evans Hughes, And Earl Warren? The Question For The Long Term Future

Ronald Leave a comment

Chief Justice John Roberts made history in a way that he had to realize would happen, when he broke with the conservative wing of the Court, shocking conservatives and cheering liberals and progressives on the Affordable Care Act, known to its critics as “ObamaCare”.

The question is whether this is a one time aberration, or a beginning of a reconsideration of the philosophy that will govern the future decisions of Chief Justice Roberts.

Has Roberts had an “epiphany”, or did he do this for his own reputation and that of the Court as an institution?

Is Roberts ready to continue to antagonize Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, two of whom will be likely staying on the Supreme Court for a long period of years, maybe as long as he will?

Does Roberts have a sense of history, and wants to be leagued with other great Chief Justices?

Certainly, seeing the harsh, bitter reaction of many conservative talk show hosts, Republicans and others of the right wing in our politics, might give Roberts pause, and possibly make him reluctant to go against the tide again.

A sign that he will not give in to the attacks would be to push another Citizens United case to be considered by the Court, and this time, to take the proper side for the people of America against the corporations and their power, but who can say that will happen?

In any case, Roberts at least has the potential, if he has the courage and principles to do so, to go down in history as in the tradition of Chief Justices John Marshall (1801-1835), Charles Evans Hughes (1930-1941), and Earl Warren (1953-1969)!

He also has the potential to go down as an “also ran’! It is all up to him, and him alone!

Tension Between Chief Justice John Roberts And Conservative Justices On Supreme Court Reported: What It Might Mean!

Ronald Leave a comment

In an extremely rare inside look at the Supreme Court, which tends to keep secret the interactions of its members, there are strong indications that the decision of Chief Justice John Roberts to side with the liberals on the Court and uphold “ObamaCare” may have caused what might be a permanent rift on the Court between Roberts and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.

No one is likely to ever confirm such a rift explicitly, but it will be very interesting to observe the body language of the Court in oral arguments, decision announcement days, and other public meetings where the members of the Court will be together in public places.

One could wish that he or she was a “fly on the wall” figuratively, to see what has really gone on, and will occur, in the future.

The situation could transform the Court IF Roberts continues to side with the liberals, but few expect that to happen. But the old warmth and respect for each other that the Court is famous for in most of its past may be done, nevertheless.

It also makes one wonder, particularly IF Roberts continues the course he is on at the moment, whether it will convince Antonin Scalia to quit the Court, at age 76 and counting, and may be determined by who is elected President in November.

It is hard to imagine Scalia leaving, or even Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, if Barack Obama is elected to a second term, but if Romney is elected, it is conceivable that both might leave sooner rather than later, if either or both feel uncomfortable working with Roberts in the future.

One can forget about Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito leaving, however, as neither would plan to leave anytime soon!

America In 2012: African American President, Irish Catholic Vice President, Mormon Presidential Candidate, Supreme Court Of Catholics, Jews, Women, African American And Hispanic, And The Third Woman Secretary Of State!

Ronald 2 Comments

In the midst of all the turmoil we are going through politically, America should sit back and marvel at how far this nation has come by 2012.

We have an African American President, Barack Obama!

We have an Irish Catholic Vice President, Joe Biden, the only Catholic since John F. Kennedy in 1960.

We have a Mormon Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney.

We have a Supreme Court consisting of six Catholics (Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor) and three Jews (Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan), and also an African American (Clarence Thomas), an Hispanic, (Sonia Sotomayor) and three women (Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan) on the Court.

And we have the third woman Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, after two earlier ones (Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice (one with Jewish heritage and one African American).

So we have a lot to be proud of in 2012, with the tremendous amount of diversity!

1937: “Four Horsemen Of The Apocalpse! 2012: “Three Horsemen Of The Apocalypse” On The Supreme Court!

Ronald 1 Comment

In 1937, at the height of the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt, four members of the United States Supreme Court resisted any part of the programs to deal with the Great Depression, and came to be known derisively as the “Four Men Of The Apocalpyse!.

These four Justices, seen as overly right wing conservatives were:

Willis Van Devanter (1911-1937)
James McReynolds (1914-1941)
Pierce Butler (1922-1938)
George Sutherland (1923-1939)

Today, 75 years later, it is clear that three Supreme Court Justices are united in their opposition to the agenda and programs of Barack Obama, as he tries to deal with many of the same economic problems that we had in the Great Depression.

These men are:

Antonin Scalia (1986-)
Clarence Thomas (1991-)
Samuel Alito (2006-)

It would seem appropriate to call them the “Three Horsemen of the Apocalypse”!

In 1937, we had two moderate centrists on the Court, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Associate Justice Owen Roberts, while today we have somewhat equivalent conditions with Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy!

Hopefully, Barack Obama will have much of the same fortune that FDR had, the ability in the second term to replace, in FDR’s case, three of the four “Horsemen of the Apocalypse” with replacement appointments with a more open minded, progressive attitude, which had a dramatic effect on the future of the nation!

One Dark Part Of The Supreme Court Decision On “Obamacare”: Commerce Clause Limited For First Time Since New Deal, Thrilling Libertarians!

Ronald Leave a comment

As one analyzes the Supreme Court decision on “ObamaCare” written by Chief Justice John Roberts, in the midst of the celebration, one has to pause and be concerned about Roberts’ assertion that the “commerce clause”, utilized regularly since the New Deal to permit expansion of federal power, was declared limited by a 5-4 vote of Roberts and all four Republican and conservative appointments on the Court—Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito–and vigorously opposed by the four Democratic and liberal appointments—Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Instead, Roberts said the law was constitutional based on the “mandate” being a tax.

LIbertarians are cheered by this aspect of the case, but it COULD effectively limit federal power, and restore states rights back to the pre 1930s view, which would indeed be tragic in so many ways!

So the battle over the future of government, and over what the Roberts majority opinion means for the long term, will be the subject of much discussion, debate, and cases over the coming years!