No Supreme Court Justices for a Democratic President

The way we operate our government in America is by convention: we collectively agree on a set of rules until we no longer agree. And one of our (at least recent) agreements is no longer working.

This Washington Post article covers the recent announcements from John McCain and Ted Cruz that indicate they no longer hold to the convention that the President nominates a Supreme Court Justice candidate and the Senate "advise and consent" on the nominee. They hold a hearing and vote up or down. Since President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia and the Senate (Republicans) indicated that they would not hold hearings on his nomination because a 4th year nomination should be held over for the incoming new president. But now that it appears that Trump may lose, McCain and Cruz have declared that Senate Republicans could refuse to consent to any nominee of a Democratic President.

Think about what that means. There is, as the article points out, plenty of precedence for the Supreme Court to operate with less than the full nine. The existing members have indicated that this burdens them greatly. It also allows for more tied votes, leaving existing decisions to stand.

But aside from that, what does this say about our government? What does this say about the Senate? What does this say about working together as Americans?

Did the Republican Senators suddenly stop being Americans? Are they so scared of the Tea Party and their base, stoked up to a frenzy by talk radio and Fox News?

I recommend to everyone the book Why the Right Went Wrong: Conservatism -- From Goldwater to Trump and Beyond. Most Republicans look back to the glory days of Ronald Reagan, but the current far-right, no compromise, limited government, social restrictive views date back to Goldwater, and even further back to the migration of conservative southern democrats to the Republican party and the emigration of moderate to liberal Republicans to the Democratic party or to Independent status.

As an example, Eisenhower received 40% of the black vote. Goldwater and his supporters did not court the black vote. One of his biggest supporters, William Buckley, touted the superiority of the white race in 1964 in his magazine National Review. This has continued to the point that Trump fails to poll more than a few percentage points of black voters, and his outreach effort to blacks seemed to be symbolic only. The party of Lincoln became the party of dog whistle politics, and their share of the African-American vote decreased to 13%.

Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan governed by practicality over principal. The current crop of Republicans practice principal over practicality. This too harkens back to Goldwater, who offered no compromise.

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

The current brand of Republicans practice extremism in the defense of the type of liberty that they believe in. They will go to extremes, like shutting down the government instead of raising the debt ceiling. Or refusing to act on a judicial appointment from a president that is not in their party.

But does that brand of liberty they believe in include the Constitution of the United States?

The only way that Americans can ensure that their Senators follow the Constitution, instead of practicing extremism in the defense of the type of liberty they dream of is to punish them at the ballot box. That is if the voters themselves believe in the Constitution.

Time for Trump to Go

As a liberal and progressive, I was a Bernie Sanders supporter, despite the fact that I could not see how some of his proposals could possibly be funded. I was disappointed to see Hillary Clinton receive the nomination. My disappointment stems from Bill Clinton's presidency:

1. The descriptions of the Clinton White House as being operated by a bunch of kids that couldn't keep to a meeting schedule or meeting agenda.
2. The failure of the Clinton Administration to bring about health care reform.
3. The degree of contempt exhibited by the Clintons for the military.

I saw the selection of Trump as the Republican nominee as a mixed affair. While I thought him to be the easiest candidate to defeat, I feared that the divisiveness of his primary campaign would continue into the general election.

Trump has continued to disappoint me.

But the events of the past week have highlighted so many terrible things about modern day American that I believe it is no longer time to accept what is happening. The sequence of the release of the 2005 tape of Trump and Bush bantering about abusing women, "locker room talk" as Trump puts it, followed by the denial of any sexual assault by Trump at the second presidential debate, followed by yesterday's (Oct. 12, 2016) accounts of assault by at least five women, now puts into sharp relief the status of the 2016 election.

We have a sexual predator running for President on the Republican ticket.

I do not see Trump's running mate, Mike Pence, as much better. At the end of the Vice-Presidential debate, both candidates showed real thought and emotion describing their struggles to reconcile their religious beliefs with the requirements of their offices. I believe that Kaine gave the more correct response required by our system of government: that as governor, he had to subjugate his personal beliefs and support the law of the land. Pence, on the other hand, described how his beliefs were more correct than the law of the land, which he sought to overturn.

Make no mistake, Trump has to go. While the U.S. can survive a bad president, electing a sexual predator would have serious consequences. Already, teachers are describing the Trump effect in schools around the country.

But I think it will be useful for the Republican party to retain Trump so that the people can have their say on his candidacy. I think it fitting that the Republican party reap what they have sown.

For years the Republican party has tried to fuel and use the anger of middle class whites, using mouthpieces such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, for the benefit of the 1%. Gaining office through the (cynical) manipulation of the many on social issues allows the enactment of economic policies that flow to the top. Trump is no different. He fires up his supporters through calls for a wall to keep out Mexican rapists, a ban on Muslim immigrants, defunding Planned Parenthood, implementing "stop-and-frisk" nationwide, reintroducing torture. Yet his economic plans are designed to help the wealthy: tax cuts that chiefly benefit the top 1% and 0.1%, corporate tax cuts, special treatment of carried interest for hedge funds and investors, elimination of the estate tax (which uniquely benefits his family as real estate developers).

In fact, Trump's economic proposals are a return to the 1980's, where the combination of tax cuts and increased defense spending drove up the deficit. Under Reagan, the public debt rose from 26% of GDP in 1980 to 41% in 1988 (from $712B to $2.052T, a 3x increase). Most of the benefits went to the wealthiest Americans (see chart below).

Perhaps in the 2016 election, like no other before it, we can finally have a referendum on the Republican plan that started with Newt Gingrich (another Trump supporter). Perhaps now, the people will see a plan that uses the middle class to fund the rich.

Or perhaps not. In one CNN video clip aired of a Mike Pence rally on Oct. 12, 2016, a woman in the crowd, when offered the microphone to ask Pence a question, stated that she was "...ready for a revolution on election day if Hillary Clinton was elected. I mean, come on, guys. Aren't you?".

Perhaps the Republican party, and Donald J. Trump, really has managed to capture the desires of the crowd. Or did they manufacture it?