The Wrongologist – Page 5 – Geopolitics, Power and Political Economy

We Must Resist This Extreme Court

The Daily Escape:

Broad-tailed hummingbirds mating, northern CO – June 2024 photo by Hilary Bralove. This is what John Roberts and his radical Conservative associates are doing to American democracy.

“What is the essence of America? Finding and maintaining that perfect, delicate balance between freedom ‘to’ and freedom ‘from’” –Marilyn Vos Savant

The American colonies fought to get free from a king who ruled with absolute power. And on Monday, once again in America, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in substance overthrew the American Revolution by saying that any US president could have the rights of a modern-day king, broadly immune from prosecution under the law for his/her acts.

This betrayal of the American revolutionaries, Founders and Framers was delivered in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts on behalf of the Conservative radicals who make up the majority of the SCOTUS. It hurts even more because it is designed to protect the most corrupt and dangerous person to ever hold the office of President of the US. Looking at the opinion, it becomes clear that the Conservative majority is more concerned with concentrating power in the hands of the president than in how a president might abuse that power.

This usurping of power is not implied anywhere in the Constitution, nor implied by the centuries of precedent in opinions by the SCOTUS. For you fans of Originalism, remember this, written by historian Joseph Ellis in 2018: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“Most members of America’s founding generation would have regarded this situation as strange. If you read the debates among the delegates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and then read their prescriptions for judicial power in Article III of the Constitution, it becomes clear that the last thing the 39 signers of the document wanted was for the Supreme Court to become supreme.”

Bu real power in this country no longer lies in the People. It now resides at the Supreme Court.

For generations, doomsayers have warned us about the imminent collapse of the American republic, not by outside forces, but by inside elements gnawing at the nation’s gut like a cancer. Watch out for the Communists. Watch out for the foreigners swarming our borders. Watch out for leftists. Watch out for the Jews. Watch out for the Muslims. Watch out for rock and roll. Watch out for Disney.

Now the US as we knew it is tottering. But the collapse wasn’t caused by any of those things. It was caused by radical ideologues who knew how to pervert the very mechanism that was supposed to ensure the stability of American democracy: Its system of checks and balances. You know, the three branches of the federal government empowered to crack the whip on each other, and all of them answerable to The People. But for all their wisdom, the Founders were unable to foresee that two centuries on, there would be plotters and schemers who found a means to exploit the chinks in the wall. And possibly to bring the whole thing tumbling down.

We’re talking about the fallout from the SCOTUS 6-3 decision in Trump vs. US. As Heather Cox Richardson (HCR) noted:

“This is a profound change to our fundamental law—an amendment to the Constitution…”

Here’s a brief summary by Robert Hubbell: (Emphasis by Hubbell)

“Today, the Supreme Court invented a rule (found nowhere in the Constitution) granting presidents immunity from criminal prosecution as follows:

Core presidential functions are absolutely immune (“conclusive and preclusive”), for example, when granting pardons.

Official acts are preemptively immune from criminal prosecution for a president’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility—which is almost anything tangentially related to the president’s enumerated powers

Evidentiary rules. The Court also imposed two evidentiary rules on prosecutors seeking to navigate the above two rules:

A prosecutor may not use official acts as evidence in a prosecution of unofficial acts.

A prosecutor may not examine a president’s motives in attempting to distinguish between official and unofficial acts.”

HCR reminds us that at his confirmation hearing in 2005, now–Chief Justice John Roberts said:

“I believe that no one is above the law under our system and that includes the president. The president is fully bound by the law, the Constitution, and statutes.”

But he’s now changed his mind. Roberts’ opinion went even further than Trump had requested. And instead of reciting what the SCOTUS has now allowed the president to do without fear, let’s take a look at how we got here:

A jury found that Trump committed 34 felonies to help win in 2016.
After committing those crimes, once he took office, Trump then appointed three Supreme Court justices.
Those justices then delayed efforts to hold Trump accountable for allegedly committing more crimes to hold onto power after losing the 2020 election.
Now, those same justices support the idea that Trump enjoys absolute immunity for “official acts”—thereby drastically weakening efforts to hold Trump accountable.

One Constitutional flaw the founders left us is the Electoral College (EC). Its original purpose was to advance the interests of slaveholders. And while we no longer have slaveholders, their spiritual descendants now control the Supreme Court.

While the EC was supposed to safeguard against the “tyranny of the majority”, it has instead promoted the tyranny of the minority. The EC allowed the Supreme Court to be hijacked by authoritarians. Five of its current members were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote, and another who helped one of those popular vote losers, GW Bush, ascend to the Oval Office. That is Clarence Thomas, also married to a conspirator in the Jan. 6 insurrectionist plot.

This has cost us control of our politics and our courts. Control is now held by a minority, supported by some technocrats in the middle, and enabled by the apathy of most of the rest of us.

Worse, those in the current minority are extremists. The Supreme Court is now no different from the Senate: An explicitly partisan, supra-legislative body that, because of the EC, has a built-in bias for the rural party.

It took just eight years for a game show host who was unable to win a plurality of the vote to expose our entire political order as rotten and decayed. He demonstrated that the impeachment mechanism was a dead letter and then got the Supreme Court to declare that the president was, by definition, above the law.

How do we now save our Constitutional republic?

During this Fourth of July week, let’s remember that our common enemy is the partisan power of a partisan minority. This weekend is our opportunity to set a battle plan against that common enemy. That would be a plan to maintain control of Congress for the next two years. The Democrats are just five seats away from having majority control of the House of Representatives. It is a heavier lift to retain control of the Senate, but it isn’t beyond possibility. As Wrongo said the other day, focus on these seats may also help push Biden over the goal line. And even if it doesn’t, the incoming president Trump would be effectively blocked from implementing much of his agenda.

Ultimately, we need political power to dilute the power of this Extreme Court that has taken control of the duties of the other branches of government. If there’s a better argument for voting for Biden (or anyone else who’s not Trump) Wrongo doesn’t know what it is.

There is no option, we have to resist, no matter what. We have to fight.

At this difficult, traumatic time, we must convert the shock of this latest extreme judicial overreach into action, to achieve an overwhelming victory in November. Just as Dobbs fueled a massive turnout, so too should Trump v. US.

(This is Wrongo’s last column before the Independence Day holiday. The next column will be published on Monday, 7/8)

Why Is The NY Times So Intent On Replacing Biden?

The Daily Escape:

Cliffs near Kayenta, AZ – June 2024 photo by Karen Lund Larsen

What is it with the NYT? The Wrong family has subscribed to both the online and print versions for many decades. Wrongo remembers how badly the NYT treated Hillary Clinton about her emails in 2016. And their recent editorial board missive saying that Biden should retire for the good of the country made him again question precisely what they’re trying to accomplish in this election cycle.

To refresh your memories, Vox ran an analysis of the NYT’s reporting on Clinton about a year after the 2016 election that gave us Trump. Here’s the headline from that article:

“Study: Hillary Clinton’s emails got as much front-page coverage in 6 days as policy did in 69”

Vox helpfully provided a look at those six days:

The article authors Watts and Rothschild compiled data for all front-page and online articles published by The Times between September 1, 2016, and Election Day on November 8. Watts said of Clinton’s emails:

“It’s just a tremendous amount of…front-page real estate devoted to this scandal….The monolithic story that’s constantly renewing itself seems to be disproportionately damaging compared to this kaleidoscope.”

We all know what happened to the Clinton presidential campaign on November 8.

Fast forward to the NYT’s coverage of the Biden debate and its aftermath:

In some ways this is worse than with Hillary, because much of the NYT coverage was editorial hammering on Biden’s disastrous debate performance. You can probably expect the same thing going forward. Former Assistant AG for New York State and MSNBC commentator Tristan Snell nailed it:

Well, they didn’t say absolutely nothing, just close to it. Here’s the NYT’s front page on the day Trump was convicted:

Three stories. That’s it. NYT’s Editorial Board did publish an op-ed: Donald Trump, Felon in which the NYT made no call for Trump to step down as the GOP candidate. Here’s the final paragraph of that op-ed:

“In the end, the jury heard the evidence, deliberated for more than nine hours and came to a decision, which is how the system is designed to work. In the same way, elections allow voters to consider the choices before them with full information, then freely cast their ballots. Mr. Trump tried to sabotage elections and the criminal justice system — both of which are fundamental to American democracy — when he thought they might not produce the outcome he wanted. So far, they have proved resilient enough to withstand his attacks. The jurors have delivered their verdict, as the voters will in November. If the Republic is to survive, all of us — including Mr. Trump — should abide by both, regardless of the outcome.”

Contrast this with the Philadelphia Inquirer:

“To serve his country, Donald Trump should leave the race”
“Biden had a horrible night Thursday. But the debate about the debate is misplaced. The only person who should withdraw from the race is Trump.”

David Pecker, former owner of “The Enquirer” told us the plan. Plant the seed, a front page staring you in the face at every grocery store in America. The only thing that’s important is the cover.

Turns out that’s not much different than the NYT these days.

Wrongo isn’t some kind of mad skills media critic, and he continues to read the NYT. But when are we going to see the wall-to-wall editorials and Op-eds calling for the coup-leading, convicted felon, still-in-legal-trouble man with vivid dreams of political revenge and a fleeting grasp on reality being called to step aside? Are Republicans some sort of unaccountable, unstoppable force that few in the media can never criticize?

Wouldn’t it be fantastic if the next time a reporter brings up getting out of the race with Biden himself, Biden responded with:

“Either go write an Op-Ed making the case for my Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment, or shut the f—k up about it.”

Biden’s performance hurts his chances, no question. But dropping out now would assure defeat for the Democrats. There’s no Johnny Unbeatable in sight. Quitting the race now would fracture the Democratic Party. It would also reinforce the GOP lie that Biden and the administration accomplished nothing and was never legitimate.

Ironically, the late, unlamented Donald Rumsfeld can be misquoted to say:

“You fight an election with the candidate you’ve got, not a candidate you wish you had”.

It’s time to wake up America, we have to do more, and worry less. Stop reading the papers (specifically the NYT), and help elect Democratic Senators and Congresspersons. Let’s help them run strongly in all districts in November. Maybe they can help push Biden across the finish line.

To help you wake up, listen to The Yardbirds tune “Please Don’t Tell Me ‘Bout The News” from their 2003 album “Birdland”. The Yardbirds were an English rock band, formed in 1963. The band started the careers of three of rock’s most famous guitarists: Eric Clapton, Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page:

Sample Lyrics:

You can read it in the morning
You can read it late at night
Well there’s been another warning
Or there’s been another fight

There’s a scandal going on
Some reporter stumbled on
About a leak in the press
And the world is in a mess

Won’t you spare me from this story
‘Cause I only get confused
Please don’t tell me about the news
Please don’t tell me about the news

Cartoons Of The Week – June 30, 2024

It’s no surprise that all of the cartoonists arose from their slumbers to draw various scenes of
the Biden and Trump debate and its aftermath. In most cases they magnified Joe’s decrepitude or show streams flowing from Trump’s mouth. Few are genuinely funny.

But before cartoons, a few more words about the debate and where we are going. The NYT has an editorial saying that Biden should stand down for the good of the country. Even though the idea has been rejected by Biden, that thought is alive and will play out over the next few weeks. And for better or for worse, it will largely gain or lose traction based on poll results, by those same people who we’ve been saying for months that we shouldn’t trust their numbers.

That’s the dilemma facing Democrats. Interestingly, Biden’s poll numbers went into positive territory in a post-debate poll yesterday and he had his best fundraising day ever. The viewing numbers show that only about 30% of those likely to vote this fall watched or streamed the debate on Thursday night.

That historically small audience was likely comprised mostly of partisans on both sides, particularly given that CNN allowed Fox to run a simulcast of the debate on its network, giving Trump supporters a safe space to watch.

That so few undecided or persuadable voters checked into the debate could explain why a new 538/Ipsos poll taken entirely after the debate, found little movement from a previous poll of the very same people. Note: Biden leads today by 2.7 points, 46.2%-43.9%:

Why is it that Democrats collapse in terror when their guy gets a cold? Republicans rally around their guy when he’s found civilly liable for sexual assault; when he tries to overthrow the government and loses more than 60 lawsuits before doing so; and when he’s convicted of a felony based on his desire to conceal paying off a porn star that he had at least somewhat coerced sex with, while his wife was recovering from childbirth.

The pundits would have you believe that Democrats have to “acknowledge reality.” Instead, that says Democrats are cowards looking for a place to hide from the big, bad NYT. It doesn’t matter if the Dems replace Biden or not, the media is going to harp on the shortcomings of whoever it is, no matter what.

So circle the wagons and not the firing squad. The administrations of both of these two men have track records that are easily predictive of future performance. Make this a choice between one or the other of them rather than the media’s default position of it being a referendum on Biden. Discipline yourselves and focus on what is really at stake. This election isn’t a casting call for a reality TV show. It’s an election where the candidates represent fundamentally different visions of the American future. And those visions are the only thing that matters. On to cartoons.

Contrasting platforms 2024:

The only choice?

What happened to the Biden’s taking drugs narrative?

Monday will bring new horrors:

How it really works:

Few things are as difficult to swallow as Louisiana’s new policy:

Scrawling by a pavement Plato telling us what to do this fall:

About That Debate

The Daily Escape:

Rainstorm, Blue Ridge Mountains, Blue Ridge Parkway, NC – June 2024 photo by David R. Robinson

It’s a new day and we’re trying to pick up the pieces after what happened in last night’s debate between Trump and Biden. Here’s a recap by Rick Wilson, Lincoln Project co-founder:

“It’s late June, and Joe Biden went on stage with a felon who tore down America, told 500 sundry lies, bragged about ending Roe v. Wade, defended January 6th, denied having sex with a porn star, and promised to betray Ukraine. And Joe Biden had a bad, bad night.”

Biden stumbled over his words, and Trump’s barrage of lies went unchecked. On Twitter and on cable news, the political pundit class had a collective freakout. From political journalist John Nichols:

“CNN is illustrating how a ‘debate’ when the moderators reject the basic responsibility of fact-checking in real time, and refuse to challenge blatantly false statements, is not a debate. It’s…chaos where lies are given equal footing with the truth.”

When Wrongo heard that CNN wouldn’t be doing any real time fact-checking on Thursday afternoon, it was clear how the debate would go. Only now, the Democrats and Biden can’t tell people they didn’t see what they saw.

A lot of media people are SHOCKED at Biden’s performance. Dem consultants see that there is blood in the water and the sharks are circling. So many senior Dems are saying that Biden should step aside. The options are pretty simple:

Convince Biden to drop out of the race.
Stick with Biden and hope his debate performance doesn’t turn many voters away.

There are LOTS of Dems who want option #1. But it will be impossible to get Biden to drop out if he doesn’t want to do it. And there are NO signs that he wants to it.

Any plan to ease Biden out would likely require the involvement of Jill Biden and Barack Obama, along with assembling a pre-fab, pre-convention ticket acceptable to the Party’s delegates.

Otherwise, it would be a free-for-all. Even with Biden and Obama’s backing, that’s a huge undertaking with a 10 out of 10 degree of difficulty. It also entails massive risk with the convention delegates, the public, along with the challenges of spinning up a presidential campaign from a standing start. No Democrat on the sidelines today has the national organization in place to make a credible presidential run. They would have to take over the Biden campaign’s assets and move on from there.

Get a grip: One candidate on the stage lied from start to finish. And no one is suggesting that he drop out.

The media has been on the verge of burying Biden because of his age for months. That was never more true than on CNN on Thursday night, where their coifed pundit-moderators ignored the elephants in the room – that one of the two men standing at the podiums was a convicted felon, the leader of a coup attempt, an alleged thief of national security documents, who was earlier this year found liable in a civil court for rape, and has promised to usher in a vengeful authoritarian regime if he returns to office.

Instead, they launched the debate with their usual dead horse: the deficit and taxes. More from Wilson:

“History is replete with bad debate performances: Clinton’s first outing in 1992, George W. Bush’s Boston groaner (I was there, and it was awful), and Obama’s first showing against John McCain. Debates matter until they don’t, but they matter most to the chattering and online classes.”

All of those debaters won the presidency.

Biden is still overwhelmingly likely to run for reelection; he’s still is in a position to be re-elected. Biden, even diminished, is more right than wrong, that at this point he represents the Party’s best chance to keep Trump out of the Oval Office.

Biden did the best he could with an opponent who is unconstrained by the truth and moderators perfectly willing to allow Trump to lie. Unfortunately while Biden started weak, he finished stronger, while Trump started strong, he finished weak.

But Wrongo assumes that many people stopped watching after the first break.

So while some Democrats are in a panic about Joe Biden’s debate performance, we need to get a clue and check in with reality. It was probable that Biden was unwell and fatigued. Imagine how well you’d perform under the same conditions, regardless of your age.

Swallow your panic and get to work, doing whatever you can. Because for many Americans, this is personal. Your guy had a bad night. But the sun is out today. Move forward. Stop being afraid of your own shadow. We’re running against an insurrectionist and a felon. Biden is old. Stop being afraid of it.

We’re having our Saturday Soother on Friday this week, for the obvious reason that it’s necessary. On the Fields of Wrong, a very large tree fell across the long driveway of two of our neighbors. It says a lot that five or so of the men in the neighborhood worked together over two days to reopen the road. It did require borrowed and rented capital equipment: a scoop loader, a tractor and a wood chipper.

It’s going to be a cooler and drier Friday and Saturday in Connecticut. So let’s grab a seat in the shade and do our best not to think about the Supreme Court’s continuing efforts to end democracy as we used to know it. Try instead to take a few moments to gather ourselves for the slings and arrows of the week to come.

Start by listening to “Uncle John’s Band” by the Grateful Dead. It started appearing in their concerts in1969. The band recorded it for their 1970 album “Workingman’s Dead”. It was written by guitarist Jerry Garcia and lyricist Robert Hunter. The tune was played more than 330 times by the Dead and the lyrics seem to Wrongo to be valuable today:

Sample Lyrics:

Well, the first days are the hardest days
Don’t you worry anymore
‘Cause when life looks like Easy Street
There is danger at your door
Think this through with me
Let me know your mind
Woah, oh, what I want to know
Is are you kind?

Goddamn, well, I declare
Have you seen the like?
Their walls are built of cannonballs
Their motto is “don’t tread on me”

Come hear Uncle John’s band
Playing to the tide
Come with me, or go alone
He’s come to take his children home

Immigration Policy And The Debate

The Daily Escape:

Rustic barn at sunset, Sherman, CT – June 2024 photo by Dave King Photography

Tonight’s presidential debate is sure to include words and misinformation about US immigration, along with heaps of emotion. Trump and the GOP have made their opposition to immigration a defining political message. If he’s elected again, he wants to round up millions of the undocumented, then detain and deport them. Comments about “s**thole countries,” and nations sending “rapists” and “murderers” to the border were hallmarks of Trump’s first term. He’s built on that this time around.

Biden OTOH, has taken two executive actions on immigration recently. First, it was restricting the number of migrants who can request asylum in a given day. And then he announced a new measure to shield unauthorized immigrants who are married to US citizens from deportation.

Biden’s moves offer something for voters who think border enforcement is too lenient as well as for those who support helping immigrants who live in the US illegally. Since Biden took office, he’s used a mix of policies to restrict illegal immigration and offer help to people already in the country.

Republicans say Biden’s border policies have made the southern border like Swiss cheese. Republicans think of immigration as a problem of enforcement and domestic security (or at least the great political hay they can make of harping about enforcement and security).

We all know that despite the theater, America’s immigration system needs reform in areas including refugee status, skilled-worker visas, and new immigration quotas that have been out of date for decades.

What’s little known is that while the surge of illegal migration has soaked up America’s and the Department of Homeland Security’s attention and resources, The Economist says that legal immigration has rebounded.

Under Trump, we had the longest continuous decline in new green cards issued since the 1990s. The number of refugees admitted annually fell to its lowest level in the resettlement program’s history. Denial rates for skilled-worker visas rocketed. Later, the Covid pandemic closed consulates abroad.

But legal migration is on the rise again. Nearly 1.2 million green cards were issued in the FY 2023, a 68% increase from 2020. The government is projected to resettle at least 90,000 refugees in 2024, far more than the 11,000 or so settled during the pandemic.

Non-immigrant visas, the kind that temporary workers and students get, have also grown. The H-1B lottery system, which allots visas to high-skilled, mostly tech, workers, is a lottery in which hundreds of thousands of applicants compete for just 85,000 spots. Many workers apply several times in the hope of improving their chances of being selected.

Although more students are coming to study in America, many more are also being denied visas. The same factors encouraging border crossings ̶ a hot labor market, violence and instability at home, and a more welcoming administration ̶ are convincing young people abroad to try to get their education in America.

What has all this meant for the workforce? At its peak in 2021, the US had a shortfall of foreign-born workers of about two million people. That’s now disappeared, partly due to the people who came across the southern border and found work. But there also has been a rebound of college-educated legal migrants. Here’s a chart from The Economist:

Today, the US has returned to the trend line of the 2010’s for foreign-born workforce. Importantly, about 45% of recent immigrants have a college degree, compared with 38% of native-born Americans and 33% of those who arrived in the 1990s.

All of this is in spite of the creaky immigration system itself. Congress has repeatedly failed to create new legal pathways for migrants, to increase caps for limited visas and to make the system more responsive to the needs of America’s economy.

The result is a monumental backlog for handling asylum cases at the southern border, and for processing legal immigrants and green card applicants. This means it takes years to adjudicate an asylum claim in the US, and it means long waiting times at our overseas consulates.

Importantly, Americans do not share the Republican view of not allowing immigration reform. While most Americans support more deportations and the border wall, they approve of immigration overall. Some 61% of registered voters surveyed by Pew in April maintain that America’s openness to people from elsewhere is essential to its national character.

But it’s an election year. So it’s doubtful that any of these facts will be on display at the debate. And as Hillary Clinton said in the NYT:

“It is a waste of time to try to refute…Trump’s arguments like in a normal debate. It’s nearly impossible to identify what his arguments even are. He starts with nonsense and then digresses into blather. This has gotten only worse in the years since we debated. I was not surprised that after a recent meeting, several chief executives said that Mr. Trump, as one journalist described it, ‘could not keep a straight thought’ and was ‘all over the map.’”

What’s the best we can hope for from the debate? That CNN’s moderators rise above the usual script, that they avoid normalizing the crackpot who’s using his nonsense, deceit and lies to be seen as equal to his opponent. If they check the crackpot, there’s a chance that the debate won’t be a train wreck caused by what we’ve come to see as “poor moderation.”

Will CNN check the crackpot, or will we be forced to again thread our way through the cacophony?

Trump’s Running Mate

The Daily Escape:

Columbia River Gorge with Crown Point center right, WA – June 2024 photo by David Leahy Photography

Should we care who Trump selects as his running mate? NBC News now indicates the short list has been reduced to North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, Ohio Senator JD Vance, and Florida Senator Marco Rubio. And Trump says he’s made the decision on who will be his next VP.

That seems to mean that New York Congresswoman Elise Stefanik and South Carolina Senator Tim Scott haven’t made the cut.

Sen. Rubio has made the cut, but faces a Constitutional issue, as it’s Constitutionally impermissible for Trump and Rubio to form a ticket if they are both residents of the same state (in their case, Florida). NBC News says that the campaign recognizes the hurdle this presents, but is of two minds about it. On the one hand, it quotes a Florida Republican operative saying:

“…if the residency thing was not an issue, I’m fairly certain Marco would be the guy.”

On the other hand, a source who has spoken with Trump about the running mate search is quoted as saying:

“…the residency factor is an issue that is easy to fix as long as Rubio relocates.”

This raises an interesting question about the residency requirements for a US Senator. It turns out that they must be a resident of the state they seek to represent at the time of the election, but not necessarily thereafter. So Rubio could move away from Florida without having to surrender his Senate seat. But he would have to re-establish Florida residency to seek a new term as Senator.

If he were the selected VP, whatever effort he made to establish residency in a new state between now and November would certainly be challenged in court. But who knows if the Supreme Court would: a) hear the case; or b) decide in Rubio’s favor?

One reason Wrongo hasn’t given much thought to who Trump will choose is that it’s unlikely to make that much of a difference. The contest isn’t between VP Kamala Harris and one of these three Trump boys. It’s going to be a yes or no vote on Trump.

Usually the VP selection helps the presidential candidate in his/her home state. In the case of Rubio and Vance, they’d potentially help, but Trump is already heavily favored to win in both Florida and Ohio. And if he needs a boost from Bergum to win in North Dakota, he’s done before the race begins.

Rubio might provide Trump a boost with certain Latinos. The base will love Vance and they’ll tolerate Burgum. So the choice probably comes down to who is more likely to break laws if Trump asks them to.

None of these candidates should strike fear in the heart of the Biden campaign. Vance would be the worst simply because choosing him doubles down on white nationalism. Rubio has dealt in a serious way with the agencies of the executive branch for long enough that he could serve as a fill-in president without falling on his face. Maybe the same is true of Burgum, who has relevant executive experience from running North Dakota.

Time to wake up America! The presidential election is ramping up, just when you would prefer to go on vacation! Sadly, Biden needs whatever you can do to help turn out voters, and to help in swing states in particular.

To help you wake up, watch and listen to Willow Smith and her group perform “Symptom of Life” for NPR’s Tiny Desk Concert. She’s the daughter of Will Smith, but she’s got enough talent that you’re going to forget about her family tree.

And yes, you’re counting meters in seven here. The tune alternates between a 7/4 verse and a 4/4 chorus, while sounding fresh and natural:

The concert is nearly 20 minutes long. Wrongo picked the first tune, but you can listen to all of them or a few if they tickle you fancy. Pop music could sound a bit like jazz in a few years.

Cartoons Of The Week – June 23, 2024

Wrongo was asked if he thought the presidential debate would be watched by many Americans. Here’s a report by CivicScience about the expected viewer demographics that show many will be tuning in:

“Exclusive data from CivicScience reveal that just over 4-in-10 US adults plan to watch or listen to some or all of the debate as it broadcasts live on CNN next week, with an additional 12% intending to catch the debate after it airs. That brings total intended viewership to just over half of the population. The other half is split between those who will be following coverage of the event in the news and those who don’t plan to follow the debate at all.”

Here’s CivicScience’s chart:

Note that there is zero data above for Independents or moderates. More from CivicScience:

Consumers who prefer to watch CNN for national news are the most likely to follow the debate live (59%), although Fox News viewers are not far behind (56%).
Wealthier earners ($100K or more yearly) are significantly more likely than lower-income earners ($50K or less yearly) to watch the live debate or follow the debate at all.
Americans who are concerned about inflation are twice as likely to tune into the live debate compared to those who are not concerned, ranking as the top election issue voters are following.

Less than a third of undecided voters (particularly younger ones) plan to watch the debate live, while a larger share will rely on social media clips and news coverage afterward. All that means is their perspective on the debate will be shaped by the people and outlets who curate their news for them. That’s the nature of politics today.

Younger audiences (under 35) are more likely than older adults to have cut the cord on cable for streaming, so they are the least likely (by a narrow margin) to watch the debate live. In fact, the percentage of the under-35 crowd who will watch or listen to the debate after it airs, or just plan to follow news about it instead, outnumbers those who plan to watch it live (see red dotted line box:

On to cartoons. Debate preview:

Should the GOP maybe reconsider their Biden attacks?

Two sides of the same political coin:

Supremes go off the deep end:

A mind is a terrible thing to waste:

The Olympics are coming. This might happen:

Remember what the words really mean:

Scattered Thoughts On Saturday

The Daily Escape:

Lupine, Crested Butte, CO – June 2024 photo by Lucian Manthey Photography

We just experienced Wrongo’s least favorite day of the year, the summer solstice. Now, the days grow shorter until December, and Wrongo will soon begin to mourn the loss of daylight. Adding to that, there’s the first presidential debate next Thursday, in which each candidate will try to make the election about which of the two of them is worse for the country.

We’re now entering the reality phase of the campaign. Over the next 10 weeks we will have 2 debates, the Trump sentencing, and the two presidential nominating conventions. Voters are beginning to check in now on how things are going. Wrongo expects that these unusually early presidential debates will draw large audiences that include a substantial swath of Americans who haven’t yet thought much about who to vote for in the upcoming election.

This is a group who can be significantly influenced by Biden’s performance.

Another thing for voters to note is that one donor, Timothy Mellon, heir to Andrew Mellon’s banking fortune, gave $50 million to the Trump campaign the day after Trump was found guilty of fraud in NY. Mellon had previously donated $25 million to super PACs for both RFK Jr. and Trump! That should prove to you that RFK Jr. is simply a stalking horse for the Trump campaign.

And think about what we had heard in the days after Trump was convicted: The media reported that Trump raised $52.8 million in the 24 hours after his guilty verdicts. But we now know that $50 million came from a single donor, meaning that Trump raised only $2.8 million from others in those early hours after the verdicts.

It’s hard to imagine that RFK Jr.’s candidacy would have be viable except for Mellon’s $25 million donation. In a sense, a single donor is keeping RFK Jr.’s campaign afloat. If anyone believed that RFK Jr. was a legitimate candidate, it is difficult to continue thinking that now after the revelation of Mellon’s funding.

Turning to the Supreme Court’s parsimonious trickle of decisions, on Friday, they upheld a gun control law intended to protect domestic violence victims. From Mark Sherman of the AP:

“The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal gun control law that is intended to protect victims of domestic violence…Justice Clarence Thomas, the author of the 2022 ruling, dissented….”

Those Remaining Supreme Court Decisions

The Daily Escape:

Dinghies and roses, Kennebunkport, ME – June 2024 photo by Eric Storm Photo

Glad to be back! Wrongo and Ms. Right spent a long weekend with family in Napa, CA.

This week should see many more decisions announced by the Supreme Court. The National Review has the remaining lineup:

“There should be 21 opinions remaining because there are 23 cases left, including two pairs (the Chevron challenges and the Florida and Texas social-media laws) that are consolidated and likely to be decided together. We will likely get at least five or six opinions this week, maybe as many as nine. The Court will need to schedule more opinion days next week, probably at least three of them if it intends to wrap up the term by the end of the week; otherwise, it could spill over to July 1 or 2.”

And NR’s Dan McLaughlin gives us a scorecard of which justices have written this term’s opinions:

“…Justice Sonia Sotomayor has thus far published seven opinions representing the decision of the Court, and Justice Clarence Thomas six; it will be surprising if we get more from Thomas and more surprising if we get more from Sotomayor. By contrast, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch have each published just two opinions with the decision of the Court, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett three; they will likely have more….There’s only one case left from…November — Rahimi, the Second Amendment case — and the likeliest author of that opinion is either Roberts or Elena Kagan, neither of whom have published an opinion for the Court from the cases argued in that sitting.”

So much for analyzing the lineup. The real issue remaining is what the Supremes are going to do with the presidential immunity case, Trump v. United States. It’s taken so long to hear from the Court on this that many are suspicious. From Leah Litman at the NYT: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“For those looking for the hidden hand of politics in what the Supreme Court does, there’s plenty of reason for suspicion on Donald Trump’s as-yet-decided immunity case given its urgency. There are, of course, explanations that have nothing to do with politics for why a ruling still hasn’t been issued. But the reasons to think something is rotten at the court are impossible to ignore.”

Litman reminds us of the history of the case:

“On Feb. 28, the justices agreed to hear…Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution on charges that he plotted to subvert the 2020 election. The court scheduled oral arguments in the case for the end of April. That eight-week interval is much quicker than the ordinary Supreme Court briefing process, which usually extends for at least 10 weeks. But it’s considerably more drawn out than the schedule the court established earlier this year on a challenge from Colorado after that state took Mr. Trump off its presidential primary ballot. The court agreed to hear arguments on the case a mere month after accepting it and issued its decision less than a month after the argument. Mr. Trump prevailed, 9-0.”

Now nearly two months have passed since the immunity case was argued , long enough to remove the possibility of either the stolen documents case or the Jan. 6 case even being started before the November election. More from Litman:

“…indeed, at this point, even if the court rules that Mr. Trump has limited or no immunity, it is unlikely a verdict will be delivered before the election.”

FYI, the Nixon tapes case was decided 16 days after oral argument. Michael Podhorzer calls the decision delay election interference:

“By shielding Donald Trump from standing trial before a jury in two of his felony cases, Trump’s three appointments to the Supreme Court, along with the even more MAGA Justices Alito and Thomas and Judge Aileen Cannon, have already irreparably interfered in the 2024 election.”

But, according to Podhorzer, the Supreme Court’s actions have actually been worse than that:

“At no point since World War II has there been a 5-4 partisan ruling to make elections more democratic – not to expand voting rights, limit campaign finance, or constrain gerrymandering.”

He also reminds us that the problem started with Bush v. Gore:

“Beginning with Bush v. Gore, on at least a dozen occasions, SCOTUS has radically altered election law on a partisan 5-4 or 6-3 basis – often overriding bipartisan legislation enacted by Congress, and often relying on spurious facts or questions not even presented in the cases.”

Podhorzer includes the following graph showing the number of important election-related rulings each Court made, broken down by the ideology of the justices. The dark blue represents liberal consensus rulings; the dark red represents conservative rulings where the majority consisted only of Republican nominees:

Podhorzer closes with a very interesting analysis of how the Court has been hijacked by the Federalist Society and the Conservative Right, such that recent appointments to the Supreme Court have not reflected the demographics of the nation: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett are the only five of the 116 justices to serve on the Supreme Court to have been confirmed by senators representing less than one half of the US population. Only John Roberts among current GOP justices was confirmed by senators representing a clear majority of Americans.”

More: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“Furthermore, of all the justices to serve in the last century and a half, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett are the only ones to have been named by a president who did not win the popular vote.”

This is the tyranny of the minority, and yet another reason why the November election is so important: It’s likely that the next president will appoint at least two new justices.

And our way out of the currently tipped scales of justice by the growing corrupt autocratic cabal at the Supreme Court begins with Democratic voters understanding the stakes when they go to the polls.

Otherwise, we’re sleepwalking toward authoritarianism.

We Can’t Sit Back. We Must Become Activists

The Daily Escape:

Doll House, Bears Ears National Monument, UT – June 2024 photo by Robert Villegas

Over the weekend, Wrongo and Ms. Right along with friends of the blog Gloria R., Pat M. and David P. saw the play “Suffs” on Broadway, NYC.

The plot is that it’s 1913 and the women’s movement is trying to get women the right to vote. They are organized by the suffragists, not suffragettes (they call themselves “Suffs”). “Suffs” traces their heroic and occasionally dangerous campaign from 1913 through ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920. There’s a schism in the movement between the conservative old-line establishment Suffs, and a youthful breakaway group who want to emulate a similar movement in England, led in the US by Alice Paul who briefly spent time in the UK.

Paul and her group confront then-president Woodrow Wilson, who, after jailing the Paul group and allowing them to nearly die in a hunger strike, eventually tumbles to supporting the Suffs’ cause.

So much has changed since the passing of the 19th Amendment over a century ago, and yet this musical reminds us that we sometimes need to look back, in order to march into the future.

It was a sold out crowd. The audience was enthusiastic, and predominantly women. “Suffs” is a fantastic show that should be seen by anyone who loves Broadway, loves musicals, and needs a breath of hope in this bleak world. Like “Hamilton“, it invites us to learn something about the history of America. It’s a good show and it’s good for the world. Wrongo was emotional, remembering his time as an activist in the Civil Rights movement.

The show sets the stage early with the song, “Find A Way”:

How will we do it when it’s never been done?
How will we find the way where there isn’t one?

“Suffs” also makes us think about where we are today in America, along with what we can do to make it better. My lunch with the Broadway friends underlined that Democrats think it’s a scary time. Dan Pfeiffer wrote about how “Democrats are in a full-blown freakout over Biden”. Wrongo was the only one at lunch who thought that Biden has an excellent chance of winning in November. To paraphrase a line in the New Yorker by Lore Segal:

“The current situation is like two Democrats who are fighting a duel. On the count of ten, they turn and each shoots themselves in the foot”.