Virginia recently ratified the ERA, which was first submitted to the states for ratification in March of 1972. Virginia's vote meant that 38 states have now ratified it, giving the ERA the 3/4 vote of the 50 state legislatures which it needs for adoption.
However, the are two huge problems with this. First the deadline for ratification expired in 1982. And second, five states have rescinded their ratification.
Thus, the ERA has not been adopted, and will not be. The wisdom of this amendment is seriously open to question. It seems like a make work project for clever lawyers, as many issues could be presented as unconstitutional discrimination against women, should the ERA become law.
The ERA feeds into the national obsession with "rights". In no other country of the world is there such an obsession with rights as in the United States. We are consumed with the concept of rights, rather than with the nobler concepts of duty, honor, integrity, and personal character.
Friday, January 24, 2020
Thursday, January 23, 2020
The Decline and Fall of Susan Collins
Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins now has the highest disapproval rating of any Senator in their home state. Fifty-two per cent of Maine voters now disapprove of her job performance, compared with only 27% three years ago.
Collins in the past has tried to portray herself a a moderate Republican, in the tradition of past independent-minded Maine Republican Senators like Margaret Chase Smith, Bill Cohen, and Olympia Snowe. But now, she has completely gone over to the dark side, voting with her fellow Republicans on all but one of the eleven Democratic amendments to the impeachment rules. She refuses to allow subpoenas to secure the testimony of relevant witnesses, showing that she is no better than hacks like Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell. The only amendment she voted for was an innocuous procedural proposal to allow Senators more time to respond to motions.
The demise of the moderate Susan Collins foreshadows the demise of the Republican party itself, which surely cannot last as a viable major party in the wake of its sychophantic support of the disastrous Trump presidency.
Here are the Republican Senators who are the most unpopular in their home states: Collins (52% disapproval), McConnell (50%), Joni Ernst (42%), Lisa Murkowski (41%), Cory Gardner, Martha McSally, and Deb Fischer (40%). Of these, Collins, McConnell, Gardner, and McSally are up for re-election in 2020 and are considered vulnerable, along with Thom Tillis and David Perdue.
Collins in the past has tried to portray herself a a moderate Republican, in the tradition of past independent-minded Maine Republican Senators like Margaret Chase Smith, Bill Cohen, and Olympia Snowe. But now, she has completely gone over to the dark side, voting with her fellow Republicans on all but one of the eleven Democratic amendments to the impeachment rules. She refuses to allow subpoenas to secure the testimony of relevant witnesses, showing that she is no better than hacks like Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell. The only amendment she voted for was an innocuous procedural proposal to allow Senators more time to respond to motions.
The demise of the moderate Susan Collins foreshadows the demise of the Republican party itself, which surely cannot last as a viable major party in the wake of its sychophantic support of the disastrous Trump presidency.
Here are the Republican Senators who are the most unpopular in their home states: Collins (52% disapproval), McConnell (50%), Joni Ernst (42%), Lisa Murkowski (41%), Cory Gardner, Martha McSally, and Deb Fischer (40%). Of these, Collins, McConnell, Gardner, and McSally are up for re-election in 2020 and are considered vulnerable, along with Thom Tillis and David Perdue.
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
The Decline of Alan Dershowitz
Alan Dershowitz has joined the Trump impeachment team to argue the constitutional issue. He has taken the position that, even if the allegations are true, they don't meet the constitutional standard for an impeachable offense.
Dershowitz is claiming that to impeach a president, Congress needs to allege a crime. The news media has come up with a clip from 1998 when he said the exact opposite during the Clinton impeachment! The other day Dershowitz attempted to explain this, but not very successfully.
I cannot escape the impression that Dershowitz is in serious decline. He seems to be turning into a caricature of himself, just as Howard Cosell did in his later years. The arrogance and condescending tone of Dershowitz is becoming more and more pronounced. We saw these traits a bit in a TV interview years ago, when he said that he often had to "talk down" to judges, because many judges were unable to grasp the legal arguments he was making. Small wonder, then, that now the judiciary is starting to complain about his condescending attitude.
I saw him on three different Sunday morning shows this past Sunday. In all three he said the same thing, refusing to express an opinion on whether Trump pressured a foreign country to help him in his upcoming campaign, because to Dershowitz this is immaterial. His argument is that the constitutional standard for impeachment is higher than this.
In all three appearances he referred to former Supreme Court justice Benjamin Curtis, who served as Johnson's chief counsel during the Andrew Johnson impeachment, arguing that criminal conduct must be present. In all three he mentioned that Curtis dissented in the Dred Scott case, as if that has anything at all to do with impeachment.
Dershowitz is making a losing argument, and surely he knows this. It is almost like he is trying to see how much nonsense he can get away with. He seemed to be practicing his arguments before the TV cameras, to see how ridiculous he had to sound before people started laughing at him.
The fact that the Trump team is using Dershowitz, a criminal defense attorney, to make the constitutional argument, rather than a constitutional law expert, shows just how weak his argument is. They can't use Jonathan Turley, their constitutional law expert before the House Judiciary Committee, because even Turley admits that asking a foreign government to help in a political campaign would be an impeachable abuse of power. Turley simply doesn't think the allegation has been sufficiently proven.
Howard Cosell, in his later years, burned all his bridges behind him, alienating all of his former friends, and spending his last days holed up in his New York apartment as a recluse. Nobody except his immediate family visited him. I see Dershowitz heading down the same path, filled with the same kind of egomaniacal fantasy of his own greatness as Cosell was.
Sorry, Alan, your time has come and gone.
Dershowitz is claiming that to impeach a president, Congress needs to allege a crime. The news media has come up with a clip from 1998 when he said the exact opposite during the Clinton impeachment! The other day Dershowitz attempted to explain this, but not very successfully.
I cannot escape the impression that Dershowitz is in serious decline. He seems to be turning into a caricature of himself, just as Howard Cosell did in his later years. The arrogance and condescending tone of Dershowitz is becoming more and more pronounced. We saw these traits a bit in a TV interview years ago, when he said that he often had to "talk down" to judges, because many judges were unable to grasp the legal arguments he was making. Small wonder, then, that now the judiciary is starting to complain about his condescending attitude.
I saw him on three different Sunday morning shows this past Sunday. In all three he said the same thing, refusing to express an opinion on whether Trump pressured a foreign country to help him in his upcoming campaign, because to Dershowitz this is immaterial. His argument is that the constitutional standard for impeachment is higher than this.
In all three appearances he referred to former Supreme Court justice Benjamin Curtis, who served as Johnson's chief counsel during the Andrew Johnson impeachment, arguing that criminal conduct must be present. In all three he mentioned that Curtis dissented in the Dred Scott case, as if that has anything at all to do with impeachment.
Dershowitz is making a losing argument, and surely he knows this. It is almost like he is trying to see how much nonsense he can get away with. He seemed to be practicing his arguments before the TV cameras, to see how ridiculous he had to sound before people started laughing at him.
The fact that the Trump team is using Dershowitz, a criminal defense attorney, to make the constitutional argument, rather than a constitutional law expert, shows just how weak his argument is. They can't use Jonathan Turley, their constitutional law expert before the House Judiciary Committee, because even Turley admits that asking a foreign government to help in a political campaign would be an impeachable abuse of power. Turley simply doesn't think the allegation has been sufficiently proven.
Howard Cosell, in his later years, burned all his bridges behind him, alienating all of his former friends, and spending his last days holed up in his New York apartment as a recluse. Nobody except his immediate family visited him. I see Dershowitz heading down the same path, filled with the same kind of egomaniacal fantasy of his own greatness as Cosell was.
Sorry, Alan, your time has come and gone.
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
Elizabeth Warren vs. Bernie Sanders
About the only thing of interest in last week's Democratic debate was the exchange between Sanders and Warren, in which Warren accuse Sanders of saying that Sanders told her a woman could not win the presidency.
This makes Warren look bad on two counts. First, she should not be revealing what was said at a private conversation. And second, it is inconceivable that Sanders would have ever said such a thing, and he of course denied saying it.
This is probably the kiss of death for the Warren campaign.
This makes Warren look bad on two counts. First, she should not be revealing what was said at a private conversation. And second, it is inconceivable that Sanders would have ever said such a thing, and he of course denied saying it.
This is probably the kiss of death for the Warren campaign.
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
A House Divided against Itself
Lincoln once declared that "A house divided against itself cannot stand". He was certainly correct, and the United Methodist Church recently took this to heart and, following 48 years of conflict over LBGTQ issues, took steps to break into two different denominations.
If only the General Conference of the Mennonite Church had been this wise, we would be in much better shape today. Instead, the denomination pushed forward with an ill-conceived merger with the Old Mennonites, even in the face of opposition from the OM's over LBGTQ issues.
Lincoln unwisely implemented his principle by making war on the South, instead of allowing them to peacefully secede as they were attempting to do. The Mennonite Church, in continuing a consolidation opposed by many members, is pursuing the same bad policy.
If only the General Conference of the Mennonite Church had been this wise, we would be in much better shape today. Instead, the denomination pushed forward with an ill-conceived merger with the Old Mennonites, even in the face of opposition from the OM's over LBGTQ issues.
Lincoln unwisely implemented his principle by making war on the South, instead of allowing them to peacefully secede as they were attempting to do. The Mennonite Church, in continuing a consolidation opposed by many members, is pursuing the same bad policy.
Friday, January 3, 2020
The Democratic Debate
The most recent Democratic debate had the participants down to seven, and it was the best one yet.
There were several memorable exchanges. Elizabeth Warren chastised Pete Buttigieg was holding a fund-raiser in a "wine cave", which promptly became the most looked-up term on the Internet. But Mayor Pete had a great response, saying "This is the problem with issuing purity tests which you yourself cannot pass." The audience gasped in appreciation (he and Amy Klobuchar got the most positive audience responses at this debate). Pete went on to point out that Warren herself had used traditional fund-raising techniques for her Senate race, and then transferred her huge stockpile of funds over to her presidential campaign. He rightly asserted that fund-raising is a necessary part of running for president, and a candidate should not turn away supporters based on any artificial purity test. Point here to Mayor Pete.
Another memorable exchange was when Pete criticized Klobuchar for relying on committee meetings instead of real-life experience. Amy shot back, when she got the chance, with an articulate defense of her work in committees, dealing with the problems of U.S. citizens. Point to Amy.
Klobuchar's performance was the highlight of the debate, as she has consistently performed well, stressing her accomplishments and her constituency of an area many semi-contemptuously refer to as "flyover country." She looks better and better to me with each debate. She would be the type of calming influence needed after the turmoil of the Trump years, just as Ford was after the Nixon scandals.
In many debates it seems the candidates fail to actually answer the questions, instead using the opportunity to spout their basic talking points. In this one, however, there were three questions which I felt were so stupid and inane that the only sensible response was to not take it literally. The first such question was one which asked "why do you think more people are not in favor of impeachment?". This question is bogus on several levels. First, it calls for mere speculation on the part of the person answering. Second, it assumes there is one reason why sixty million or so people oppose impeachment, which is absurd.
Another question asked whether the candidate would favor federal funding for wholesale relocation of cities impacted by climate change. This assumes we don't solve the problem first; it looks way ahead to a different time period, totally irrelevant to the issues facing us in 2020.
The last question was particularly inane. It asked "who on the stage do you want to ask for forgiveness, or give something to?". Huh?? What kind of ridiculous question is this? There is absolutely no point to this question, no news value here.
There were several memorable exchanges. Elizabeth Warren chastised Pete Buttigieg was holding a fund-raiser in a "wine cave", which promptly became the most looked-up term on the Internet. But Mayor Pete had a great response, saying "This is the problem with issuing purity tests which you yourself cannot pass." The audience gasped in appreciation (he and Amy Klobuchar got the most positive audience responses at this debate). Pete went on to point out that Warren herself had used traditional fund-raising techniques for her Senate race, and then transferred her huge stockpile of funds over to her presidential campaign. He rightly asserted that fund-raising is a necessary part of running for president, and a candidate should not turn away supporters based on any artificial purity test. Point here to Mayor Pete.
Another memorable exchange was when Pete criticized Klobuchar for relying on committee meetings instead of real-life experience. Amy shot back, when she got the chance, with an articulate defense of her work in committees, dealing with the problems of U.S. citizens. Point to Amy.
Klobuchar's performance was the highlight of the debate, as she has consistently performed well, stressing her accomplishments and her constituency of an area many semi-contemptuously refer to as "flyover country." She looks better and better to me with each debate. She would be the type of calming influence needed after the turmoil of the Trump years, just as Ford was after the Nixon scandals.
In many debates it seems the candidates fail to actually answer the questions, instead using the opportunity to spout their basic talking points. In this one, however, there were three questions which I felt were so stupid and inane that the only sensible response was to not take it literally. The first such question was one which asked "why do you think more people are not in favor of impeachment?". This question is bogus on several levels. First, it calls for mere speculation on the part of the person answering. Second, it assumes there is one reason why sixty million or so people oppose impeachment, which is absurd.
Another question asked whether the candidate would favor federal funding for wholesale relocation of cities impacted by climate change. This assumes we don't solve the problem first; it looks way ahead to a different time period, totally irrelevant to the issues facing us in 2020.
The last question was particularly inane. It asked "who on the stage do you want to ask for forgiveness, or give something to?". Huh?? What kind of ridiculous question is this? There is absolutely no point to this question, no news value here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
