SCOTUS decision on Trump Immunity

Despite Donald Trump's constant claims that Jack Smith is deranged, it is clear the Smith outmaneuvered Trump and his legal team again, this time by requesting that the Supreme Court rule if a president is immune from criminal prosecution from acts committed while he/she is in office.

I say outmaneuvered because anyone following any of the four criminal cases that are ongoing against Trump know that his main focus is to delay as much as possible until after the November 2024 election. What is curious about this tactic is that it assumes that should Trump win the next presidential election, he will be able to either pardon himself should he is convicted of anything, or squelch any ongoing federal investigation by commanding his attorney general to do so. 

In other words, he will pervert our judicial and executive branches because, well, because that is what a king or dictator or whatever word he would prefer to use, does.

Whether the Supreme Court might stand against him will become apparent in the next few weeks once they decide on this immunity case.

I recently expressed my opinion on Trump's First Amendment defense. Here is a link to that post.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/08/trump-and-first-amendment.html

To return to my initial assertion about Jack Smith, he knew that should the Court of Appeals rule against Trump, he would immediately file an appeal to the Supreme Court, so jumping right to that august body was extremely clever. While it remains to be seen if the March 4th trial date is viable, at least this temporary pause to allow SCOTUS to weigh in, should enable the trial to take place sometime close to March 4th, as this should be the last vestige of hope for anymore delays.

As for what the nine members of the Supreme Court will decide, I truly believe that they will act as a strong guardrail for democracy, and reject the notion that a president is immune from criminal prosecution for acts committed while serving the people.

I use the phrase "serving the people" because this is the concept that eludes Trump. A president is our most important public servant. His duty above all, is to uphold the constitution. More than anyone we elect, his actions should be for the good of the country, never for himself. It is a concept that Trump has flouted over and over again, both before, during and after his term as president. He is as completely self centered as anyone you will meet, which is blatantly obvious in as simple a thing as his propensity to take credit for anything good, and deflect blame for anything that doesn't work out.

However, that reasoning is not based on the law. If it were as obvious to the millions of Americas who continue to support Trump as it is to me, this post would not be required, as Trump would have already slithered off to some balmy tropical island somewhere to live out his life in disgrace. Sadly, that is not the case.

So legally, how will SCOTUS adjudicate this situation. 

If precedent is any indicator, the SCOTUS decision during the Nixon presidency which forced then president Nixon to release the tapes that provided proof of his complicity in the Watergate scandal, provides some insight. Of course, this current iteration of SCOTUS has already shown some inclination to reject precedent (see Dobbs decsion). 

Still, I find it almost unfathomable to believe that the nine most important judges of the United States of America, will rule that a president can break any law he/she wants and be immune from prosecution. And I especially believe that these particular nine judges, a number of whom claim to be constitutional originalists, will decide that the founding fathers thought that an American President should not, cannot, be granted the powers of a king, immune from the ramifications of any criminal activity. Those signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights didn't think King George should be granted such power, so certainly didn't think any future president of America would be empowered in such a way either.

Remember, the Supreme Court justices are not deciding guilt or innocence of the charges, just that it is constitutional to bring those charges because a sitting president can not do anything they like, such as being free to "shoot someone on Fifth Avenue " without ramifications. 

Frankly, I believe that SCOTUS should rule 9-0 in this instance, and allow the judicial process to play out. Perhaps it is enough that Trump thought he was acting as president to actively plot to subvert the peaceful transition of power because he truly thought the election had been stolen, an assertion that I discuss in the already alluded to post above, but that is the reason for a trial. To lay out the facts of his guilt and to allow a defense of why he is not guilty. Short circuiting this process by ruling that Trump shouldn't even be put on trial, denies the foundations of our twin tenets, that no one is above the law, and that American democracy is our country's most important trait.

That being said, I have no doubt that justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson will vote to allow the trial. I also believe that the three justices that Trump appointed, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett will not bend the knee, as Trump believes they should, and will also vote to allow the process to play out. And, I firmly believe that Chief Justice Roberts will also side with the idea that no man is above the law. 

As for Justice Thomas, I would prefer that he not recuse himself as many Democrats have requested. I would like him to prove to the American people that he is able to make a legal decision based on the oath he took to uphold the constitution, and not kowtow to the whims of his wife, or the influence of the billionaires who have illegally lined his pockets with gifts and privileges. Of course, there is a chance he will agree but file a side opinion that softens his vote, or even that he will file a dissenting opinion and vote to allow Trump to act above the law in the past (and then, most certainly in the future), but it is a chance I am willing to take.

As for Justice Alito, I have no real positive belief that he will vote with his colleagues to call the bluff of someone trying to be the first American dictator, but again, prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt that he values our democracy, but more importantly perhaps to him, any legacy he might have in terms of a respected jurist, above his recent tendency to jettison any interpretation of our founding documents that is not rooted in white male dominance and superiority.

Should however, my opinion be proven wrong, and the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, rule that Donald Trump, as president, is immune to criminal prosecution for anything he did while president, then we may be lost. 

I already know that Trump will claim victory next November regardless of how the electorate votes, and that Mike Johnson as Speaker of the House will do everything in his power to subvert the counting of the electors per Trump's bidding, but should SCOTUS rule that Trump, as president, is king, then any future challenge to the next attempt to steal the presidential election will be mute.

Let's hope that respect for the law, respect for our democracy, and respect for the founders and the documents they created, win the day, at least for now.

Abortion disgrace in Texas

So, for all those Independent voters and perhaps center left Democrats and center right Republicans who thought that sending abortion back to the states was a reasonable compromise, and that those (generally GOP controlled states) would fashion abortion guidelines that allowed for women to access this medical care when their doctors' thought it medically necessary, the truth has now been revealed in stark reality. At least in Texas, legislators and one odious Attorney General, it is crystal clear that they are not interested in women's health or even the well being of a fetus.

It is all about controlling women and treating them as second class citizens, good only for their capacity to make babies. Period.

For those of you who have not followed the case of Kate Cox, she is a married woman, mother of two children who went to court to seek approval for an abortion, as her pregnancy had passed the six week restriction that is current Texas law.   

You see, Texas legislators had demonstrated their lack of knowledge about a woman's reproductive system (many women don't know they are pregnant within six weeks), or the modern state of maternal medicine which is able to identify fetal anomalies (but which can not be done until 14 to 18 weeks into the pregnancy), when they passed their draconian six week ban. 

In Kate's case, fetal testing had determined that her baby has a fatal condition that would result in death either during the pregnancy, or very soon after birth. There was no scenario in which the child would live. In addition, the pregnancy was negatively effecting her health causing her to be admitted to a hospital emergency room multiple times. 

As a result, her doctors recommended an abortion. Unfortunately, there was some trepidation on the doctor's part as the medical necessity to save the life of the mother exception written into the Texas abortion ban, did not clarify this point. Kate's doctors knew that her life was not necessarily at immediate risk, and, since the Texas abortion ban included severe penalties against any hospital or doctor who participated in an abortion, they were hesitant to authorize one, instead recommending that she go out of state for her medical care. 

Think about that for a second. Doctors who knew the risk of Kate's continuing pregnancy for her life and future ability to have a child (her past birth experiences were by cesarean section), advised her to leave her home state to get the medically necessary care she required out of fear that if they provided such care, their personal lives could be subject to harm via loss of license, loss of hospital affiliation and significant fines. 

But Kate wanted her care to occur in her home town where she could have the support network of her family as well as the familiarity of the doctors with whom she has been associated during her child bearing years, so she went to court to ask for approval for the abortion.

The presiding judge, upon hearing of the details of Kate's situation, granted the request, even though the state's lawyers fought against granting the exception.

(As a side note, there is already a case in Texas court where a number of women are suing the state to revise the abortion ban to detail when the exception clause can be exercised. The Texas state defense in that case is centered on those women not having "standing", which means they are not currently pregnant so shouldn't have the right to sue.)

In other words, Kate seemed to be the perfect candidate to challenge the law since she is pregnant. Or was pregnant.

Unfortunately, as soon as the judge granted the exception, that aforementioned attorney general, appealed the decision to the Texas Supreme Court, as well as issuing threatening letters to Kate's doctors and the hospitals where they practiced. 

As a result, Kate went out of state for her medical care which was fortunate as the Texas Supreme Court, after waiting almost 3 days, summarily ruled in favor of the state and disallowed the exception as granted by the lower court. The court ruled that the fetal anomaly did not qualify for an abortion as specified in the law as Kate's condition was not immediately life threatening.

In essence, a woman in Texas, and a number of other states, needs to be inches from death until an abortion can be granted, and even then, if an Attorney General disagrees with the "immediate possibility of death" diagnosis, or can find one doctor to contest that diagnosis, the women, her doctor and the hospital where the abortion is performed, may still be held criminally liable for murder. In America!

What is truly sad is that as we speak, women are dying in America from childbirth. We are dead last in maternal death rates when compared to the other "modern" countries. In fact, the United States maternal death rate is four times or more higher than such a long list of countries, it would make you vomit, if you were actually pro-life. Here is one such source for this info.  

https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/maternal-mortality-ratio/country-comparison/

Unfortunately, it will now get worse as doctors will be forced to wait until the very least moment to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother in a number of states due to their misogynist abortion bans.

I have used the label Abortion on four posts since the Dobbs decision was rendered. Links are below if interested.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/05/abortion.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/05/more-on-abortion.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/05/one-last-thought-for-now-on-abortion.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/09/pro-fetus.html

In one of them, I suggested that we need to voice our demand for the return of the right to an abortion at the ballot box, and since then, every single referendum which sought to create a state constitutional right to an abortion has overwhelmingly been approved by the voters, even in red states like Ohio and Kansas.  

Bur we can't stop there. I am generally not a fan of the one issue voter. I believe that it is virtually impossible to agree with any candidate on every issue (if you do you are either a sycophant or just uninformed), but rather you must prioritize the issues in terms of importance to you, as well as look at the overall record of opinions by any candidate to determine percentage of common perspective.

However, I am waving this requirement as of now. Please, regardless of viewpoints on the other critical issues of the day, I implore all voters, especially women, and men with daughters, nieces, grand daughters or female cousins, to gauge your voting choice on whether a candidate supports a woman's right to make her own reproductive decisions, in consultation with her family and doctors, without government interference.

Until we elect public servants who legislate in this manner, we will continue to hear stories like Kate's, and worse, stories concerning women who lack the means to go out of state for their health care, but instead die in emergency rooms from complications that could have been prevented, and stories about babies born with fetal anomalies that result in their painful deaths soon after birth.

Pro-life my ass!

 

The Ahistorical Bunch

A few days ago, I heard a commentator on a TV opinion show use the word ahistorical. She was referring to a specific group of Americans but also was in reference to others throughout the globe. The topic was a discussion about a recent statement by one of the presidential candidates who said that he would only be a dictator on day one to accomplish two specific goals, and then would stop. She thought the fact that he was cheered lustily by the in-person event attendees demonstrated people who were demonstrating their ahistorical perspective.

I have labelled three other post under the heading Perspective in the past, and thought it might be interesting to read them again. If you believe that as well, here are links to those posts. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-night-sky.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2016/08/luck-and-perspective.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2011/06/widening-perspective.html

There have been all kinds of warnings from various thinkers and social commentators on the dangers of not studying or attempting to understand history, the most well known, something to the effect that "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

When we heard that women's sad reference to what she perceived as people who were ignoring the danger of a dictator ruling our country, my wife and I almost simultaneously turned to each other in understanding of this commentator's lament, but also both blamed our education system for not instilling an interest in history.

Is it too late to alter the way history is taught from the boring memorization of people and dates in time about events that seem so long ago, to a deeper understanding of why those people and events were important, and how those people and events have influenced us today? 

Certainly, there is an ability question to address. Advanced concepts can not be taught to children that have not developed the ability to think critically and understand complex concepts. Still, so many children have already been turned off by history once they have that ability, that they only take a history course because it is mandatory, and value passing the class only so far as that it checks off a box that moves them closer to their degree. 

Does this mean that everyone should be a historian? Obviously not, but perhaps as is true with many people who spend their lives studying one particular subject, we should at least respect their opinion when they offer it. 

That is one of the biggest problems that I see in America today, the point of this post. There is a growing segment of people who have been told to distrust a variety of people who have spent their lives researching certain topics, especially in the sciences.

And, what is truly scary, is that much of that mistrust is being sewn by educated people who have realized that the average person doesn't always know where to turn for their information, or even what information they should seek. 

Manipulators, con men, political aspirants, and just plain power hungry individuals seem to have gained the upper hand in their ability to mislead and misinform. Worse, as I am fond of saying, they start with a kernel of truth so as to fool those without the time or ability to pursue its validity, and take it to a place that is beyond true.

I recently saw an article about some GOP party members who are upset about RNC Chairman Ronna McDaniel, and her inability to get out the vote for GOP candidates, citing their losses in 2018, 2020, 2022 (a much less red wave than expected) and even this past November in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the abortion question in Ohio. 

Well, when the leader of the party has spent the last 7 years telling voters that voting by mail is fraudulent and voting by machine is rigged, then how exactly is McDaniel supposed to encourage voting? Is there some fraud within our elections? Of course, voters are people, and people sometimes cheat. But is it rampant? No. Were there hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes cast in 2020? No. Yet a certain losing candidate has taken a kernel of truth, there is some fraud in our election system, and convinced millions of Americans that our elections are rigged!

Casting doubt on our institutions, our elections, our justice system, the FBI, our scientists and other experts in their fields, is exactly how a dictator erodes confidence in the foundations of a country. Once no one can be trusted to fix our problems, the dictator has an open door to absolute power. 

Of course being ahistorical precludes understanding this playbook, but be assured, the tyrant knows it, front cover to back cover.

  

Countering Rising CO2 levels

Great article in the November edition of National Geographic concerning the new technologies being developed to counter the rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

What I especially enjoyed about the article is that it explained the issues concerning both the problem itself, and the attempts to counter it, in words that were easily understood, despite the complexity of the overall problem. 

Most people understand the overreaching situation, that since the breakthroughs of the industrial revolution that enabled incredible advances in energy extraction, transportation and distribution, improvements that powered an amazing array of enhancements to the lives of all people, there has also been a substantial increase in CO2 levels in our atmosphere. In other words, the very thing that has been a major factor in drivng the breakthroughs of our modern times, has also created a scenario that is producing as much or more negative consequences as those positive ones to date.

There are two general approaches to addressing the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, slowing the accumulation, and removing what has already been added. Remember, data suggests that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide had been at or below 280 parts per million for thousands of years, but since the mid 19th century has risen to 450 parts per million, an increase of more than 50 percent. As this number has risen, the added carbon traps more and more heat, resulting in an increase in the temperature of the Earth.

I won't go into all the negative ramifications of rising temperatures. Suffice it to say that there is overwhelming evidence that this problem needs to be addressed, and that the issue is, if not completely man-made, being exacerbated by human activity.

But, humans are nothing if not adaptable, and there is no reason to believe that the same intelligence and innovation that was at play to create the advancements of the industrial revolution cannot be applied to reversing the process.

Of course, reducing our carbon emissions is first level. As greener sources of energy have become more cost effective and efficient, we have made major inroads into producing energy without fossil fuels. Unfortunately, our global energy requirements continue to spiral upwards, offsetting much of the gain we are making in generating green energy. 

That fact is why carbon capture and carbon removal advocates have become more vocal. Perhaps a few decades ago we could have focused more aggressively on reducing emissions while investing in greener technologies, but now we need to address the issue from both ends.

Carbon capture refers to processes that capture the carbon dioxide being emitted at the point of its creation in the industrial process, whereas carbon removal focuses on taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Regardless of which technology being described in the article, and there are many companies, and a number of nations that have made great strides in these areas, there is a range of approaches that promise low to high potential at low to high expense. Of course, all new technologies are expensive at first, see computers and smart phones, but like all burgeoning industries, carbon removal requires huge investments, private and public, now, in hopes that as the cost reduces, more money will flow, more advances will be made, and so on. As more than one entrepreneur who was quoted in the article stated, it is the classic chicken and egg conundrum, in that you need lots of money at the precise time when return is at its lowest.

After reading the article, I am very encouraged that, not only does the technology already exist, but the passion and intelligence of those seeking solutions will produce even better answers. 

But, with most of our shared problems, I worry that we don't have the will to do so. From an underlining distrust in science that certain forces selfishly choose to embolden, to the profit motive of the fossil fuel industry that has prevented the cost of climate change to be applied to those creating the problem, to our public servants who either choose to ignore the science or prefer to accept donations from those responsible for the ongoing calamity, thereby eschewing their responsibility to enact laws to protect their constituents, I see more obstacles to turning the tide towards reducing carbon in our atmosphere than aids.

Let's hope I am wrong, and the scientists and business people who were detailed in the article win the day for all of us.