How a powerful Christian nationalist sees the Supreme Court? From the CN point of view of course

About 15 years ago, Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, a virulent Christian nationalist (CN), gave a speech at the Manhattan Institute, a bastion of radical right, laissez-faire capitalist plutocrat ideology. In that speech, he commented on how he saw the role of legal precedent (stare decisis in legal jargon) in deciding cases. Simply put, he was for precedent except when he wasn’t. Precedents he liked, he would adhere to, but “wrongly decided” precedents he would vote to overturn. The audience was literally in some sort of trance. They were grateful to be in the same room, breathing the same air. Literally.

Recently, Thomas gave another speech. This time he commented on the danger of destroying institutions. This is standard radical right propaganda. The radical right, including Thomas himself, have been successfully gnawing away at the independence and robustness of democracy and democratic institutions and norms for decades. That toxic hatchet job is pretty close to being done. But what on Earth prompted Thomas into this fit of radical right deep hypocrisy? The Washington Post writes:

Justice Clarence Thomas defended the independence of the Supreme Court on Thursday and warned against “destroying our institutions because they don't give us what we want, when we want it.”

Thomas, the longest serving justice, acknowledged that the high court has its flaws, comparing it to a “car with three wheels” that somehow still works. But he said the justices are not ruling based on “personal preferences” and suggested that the nation’s leaders should not “allow others to manipulate our institutions when we don’t get the outcome that we like.”

He also alluded several times to the political polarization in the United States. “We’ve gotten to the point where we’re really good at finding something that separates us,” Thomas told the crowd of more than 800 students and faculty gathered at the school’s performing arts center.

Thomas is the latest justice to add his voice to the mix and publicly come to the court’s defense in the face of growing criticism that the nine justices are merely politicians in robes.

“I think the media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal preference. So if they think you are antiabortion or something personally, they think that’s the way you always will come out. They think you’re for this or for that. They think you become like a politician,” Thomas said in response to a question about public misconceptions of the court.

“That’s a problem. You’re going to jeopardize any faith in the legal institutions.”  

But Thomas twice cautioned [about proposals to expand the court] that “we should be really, really careful” about “destroying our institutions.” He went on to quote his late grandfather as saying, “After you’ve done that, and now what? What’s your next step?”

Say what??? 

How many ways is that blatant hypocrite propaganda 

grounded in partisan motivated reasoning? 

OMG! Let me count the ways

The 1st paragraph: First, we have the “destroying our institutions because they don't give us what we want, when we want it” comment. One can rationally ask, why were you and the other five radical right CN judges put on the bench by the FRP in the first place? To deliver to the demagogic, plutocratic FRP, legal decisions that support its agenda. What agenda? Anti-abortion, anti-business regulation, anti-voting rights, anti-inconvenient truth and science, anti-government, anti-democracy, anti-rule of law, anti-free press, anti-political opposition, anti-secular government, anti-middle and lower class, with its pro-fundamentalist Christianity, pro-rich people, pro-corporations and pro-tons 'o guns 'n ammo agenda. When does the FRP want its agenda served to itself? Right now. Not next year, this year. ASAP!

And, Thomas has been working hard for years to deliver as much as he can, as fast as he can. A week or two ago, he voted with four other CN radicals to let a blatantly unconstitutional Texas abortion law take effect without even a formal lawsuit. In tat case, Thomas directly attacked and subverted the institution he claims to want to defend by killing abortions in Texas using the Supreme Court’s shadow docket tactic. Yup, Thomas is working hard to destroy the Supreme Court for all of us and the rule of law and to rebuild it as a court for demagogues, plutocrats, traitors, crooks, liars, thugs and the like. 

The 2nd paragraph: Next, let’s consider the court is a “car with three wheels” that somehow still works comment.** Well, who broke it? The fascist Republican Party (FRP), that’s who. What party does Thomas belong to? The FRP. But as a CN radical sitting on the court that is packed with five other fellow CN radicals, of course he sees it as still working.** It is working for radical Christian fundamentalist religion, the FRP and their aggressive, poison ideology and agenda (summarized above). The FRP has packed the court by blowing political norms to smithereens. From the CN point of view, everything is just hunky dory and not broken. So why fix it in any meaningful, i.e., anti-CN and pro-rule of law, way?

** A car with three wheels cannot work because it is broken. Thomas isn’t very bright. Dim bulb when it comes to logic and connections to reality.

The 3rd paragraph: Jeez, we’re only at the 3rd paragraph? Sigh, this is gonna be a long blog post. I thought this would be a short one. Foiled again.

Thomas complained that “we’ve gotten to the point where we’re really good at finding something that separates us.” Well, who is the party of ruthless propaganda that intentionally foments polarization, division and distrust? The FRP. What party does Thomas belong to? You guessed it. 

The 4th paragraph: Thomas pushed back in his comment about justices being politicians in robes. But wait! Doesn’t the FRP, and especially the hyper-radical Federalist Society, impose litmus tests to acceptability for FRP federal judges? Damn right there are litmus tests. Every one of the six CN radicals on the bench passed the anti-abortion litmus test and other mandatory FRP tests, e.g., pro-tons 'o guns 'n ammo, anti-regulation, anti-government, anti-inconvenient truth, etc. 

Passing those tests is mandatory, not optional for FRP federal judge picks. Thomas and the other five FRP judges are politicians in black robes whether he believes that or not. Thomas is blowing partisan black smoke at us, or maybe he is just trying to convince himself.

What comes out of his mouth, also comes out of this tailpipe --

it’s toxic, opaque and smells funny, but at least it’s legal 😕

The 5th paragraph: Thomas responded to a question about public misconceptions of the court and judges being politicians. He blames that media. That’s a standard FRP deflection and polarization propaganda tactic. No, the public who criticizes the current court, and how it got installed and how it decides cases has it right. The media has little to do with that other than to report on what is going on.** The judges are chosen to be politicians to advance an agenda. Thomas has gross misconceptions of the court and himself. So, is he self-deluded, a cynical liar, stupid and/or something else? 

** Actually, IMO, the media gets a grade of F for its failure to report on the awesome power and influence of CN in the federal courts and how it got that power and influence. If the professional press had been doling its job properly, the public perception of the Supreme Court and it’s alleged impartiality would be significantly worse.

Sixth and 7th paragraphs: Thomas is concerned about loss of faith in legal institutions? Really? Well, who is mostly responsible for that? The FRP, prominently including the CN radical Thomas himself. Ditto for destruction of institutions. We need to set up a gofundme page to buy a big mirror for Clarence. He really needs one. Or, he is too cynical and/or self-deluded for a mirror to make any difference?

In his speech, Thomas expresses the standard false CN and FRP narrative about the situation and who is mostly responsible for widespread public discontent. Decades of divisive, polarizing FRP propaganda have fomented most of it. Thomas did not mention the role that he and his authoritarian demagogic party have played. He makes it sound as if there is equivalence or that the people who criticize the modern CN court and how it came into existence are the ones living in la-la land and playing a dangerous game.

Question: Is Thomas and the rest of the FRP elites self-deluded, stupid, ice cold cynics hell bent on the FRP and CN agenda, and/or something else?

Regarding the California recall election

I posted some of this in a post about the 1/6 coup attempt, but the recall election is worth focusing on specifically.

In the California recall election, the state’s fascist Republican Party (FRP) failed in its attempt to take the governorship. The governor was not recalled and it was not close. FiveThirtyEight writes:

Our colleagues at the ABC News Decision Desk projected that the recall would fail at 11:37 p.m. Eastern, barely half an hour after polls closed. As of this writing, 67 percent of voters voted against the recall, and 33 percent voted for it. That margin will almost certainly narrow as more votes are counted (the numbers we have right now are mostly mail ballots, which lean very Democratic), but it’s still likely that Newsom will survive by a large margin, perhaps even comparable to his 24-point win in 2018.

But even before the polls closed in California, the lead FRP candidate alleged widespread vote fraud. That candidate, Larry Elder (~43% compared to  ~10% for another leading candidate) is a fascist conspiracy theory crackpot and long-time radical right talk show host in Los Angeles. Elder believes the 2020 election was stolen. He may contest the recall election. As usual for FRP losers, Elder did not produce one shred of credible evidence of vote fraud. All that Elder had was his bare assertion of fraud.

Elder’s alleged evidence of vote fraud was an alleged statistical analysis, Benford’s Law, of the votes used to detect vote fraud. The problem with that is that the statistical analysis cannot be done before an election. The votes have to be analyzed after an election. Despite that idiotic, fatal flaw, Elder was so enthusiastic about his vote fraud lie that he launched an anti-voter fraud website the day before the election, saying at that time that Newsome had won the election.

Clearly, the FRP’s election fraud poison has spread to states where FRP candidates lose. In states where FRP candidates win, there is no reason to allege fraud. The point is winning, not holding honest elections. That is fascism, or at least anti-democratic authoritarianism. 

What does this mean?

Opinions differ. They range from (1) this means little or nothing and it is just politics as usual, to (2) this is more evidence that the ideology and agenda of the Republican Party is authoritarian and focused on undermining elections, democracy and civil liberties. 

Is it evidence that maybe there is a backlash against the fascist Trumpism cult and if so is it confined to California or does it exist more broadly? My take on it is that once it looked like the divisive fascist Larry Elder would be the FRP’s top vote getter, Democratic voters were motivated to vote against a recall to keep him from winning the recall. The counties that voted to recall Newsome were, as expected, mostly rural counties in the Eastern part of the state. That part of California is about as radical right as just about any red state in the country. 

Green mostly rural counties voted for the recall

Red mostly urban counties voted against the recall 

As of now, it is 36.2% for the recall and 63.8% against

What was striking was the vote tally for Elder. He got 47% of the votes compared to 8.6% for Kevin Faulconer, the former Republican San Diego mayor and arguably the choice of the GOP establishment. That seems to indicate that mainstream Republican voters are not loyal to the GOP as an institution. Instead those voters look for colorful but aggressive personalities like the incendiary Elder, an online radical right talk show host. In San Diego, Faulconer governed as a center right pragmatist. In the election, he was forced to adopt to GOP's crackpot rhetoric and fantasies, but that didn't help him. He just was not radical enough for the rank and file. One can reasonably believe that the ex-president was successful in turning most of the rank and file against establishment Republicans.

This indicates that most of the Republican Party rank and file in California has radicalized and looks a lot like the party in red states. Thus, things that the FRP does in red states it controls are things that Republicans in California and probably most all other states would like to do, e.g., attack elections as fraudulent and rigged, attack civil liberties and attack democracy generally.

 

In my opinion, this is not remotely close to politics as usual, at least in my adult lifetime. The FRP has become mostly authoritarian and aggressively anti-democratic in probably all states. Elder openly lied about election fraud and it has no adverse impact on him within the FRP. That is evidence the FRP does not care about opinion outside the party and is willing to govern as a tyranny of a radical authoritarian minority.

On that last point, Elder was crystal clear. He flatly said that if he won the recall election and Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein died, he would appoint a Republican to replace her and to give control of the Senate back to the FRP and Mitch McConnell. Elder expressed no concern about contrary majority public opinion in California.

The FRP complains a lot these days that some of the things the Democrats want to do amounts to a power grab. Like protecting voting rights is a power grab. Wanting infrastructure spending is a power grab. But so what? When given the chance, the FRP does not hesitate a second to grab power by any means that it can get away with. With restraining political and ethics norms now blown to smithereens by the authoritarian FRP and its poisonous ex-president, grabbing power and exercising it regardless of majority public opinion is just what the FRP does when it gets a chance. 

In my opinion, this recall election spoke loudly about what the FRP has degenerated into, namely an authoritarian cult grounded in fantasies and disregard for public opinion. What is not clear is how non-Republican Americans will vote, fail to vote, be prevented form voting, or be subverted from voting in the 2022 and 2024 elections, which the FRP is working hard to rig in its favor. 

In California, (1) Democrats probably voted in a backlash against the divisive radical Elder, and (2) the state FRP could not suppress votes or rig the election to subvert it. That will not be the case in over 17 other states where the FRP has passed laws intended to suppress opposition votes and/or to rig elections in its favor. We still have to wait for 2022 and 2024 before we know whether the American experiment is doomed to fail and end in some form of an aggressive Christian autocratic-plutocratic authoritarianism or will continue to muddle along as a wounded, barely functional representative democracy.

Question: Can the situation in the Republican Party and its voters in California be extrapolated to most or all other states, red, blue or purple? Does it shed light on how the 2022 and 2024 elections will turn out?

Very important… not so important… all depends…

 

Yesterday on this site, there was quite the kerfuffle regarding how important precedent is in American politics.  Our disagreement arose in light of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colonel Mark A. Milley’s, “unusual actions” in the final days of the Trump presidency.  It was, indeed, an unusual time.

Several people, including Milley, Pelosi, and other power-players saw Trump as in an obviously (blatantly) declining and very unstable state-of-mind.  We all know, desperation cuts through everything, and Trump seemed quite desperate to stay in power, by hook or crook.  Many saw Trump as the proverbial “loose cannon” and were afraid he might try to start a nuclear WWIII, so he could then pretend to come back in and “fix it” (since he alone knows how to fix things).  Many suspect that Trump would have seen military action as a way of garnering enough patriotic political support to stay in power, in spite of the newly elected president, Joe Biden.  

Precedents, standards, protocols, chain of command, and in general the way stuff is normally done, seems to be falling by the wayside, in these strange political and tribal days.  So here are some questions to ponder:

-How important is political/legal precedent to you? 

-Where does old precedent end and new (some would say) “enlightened ways” begin?  How do you personally draw that fine line of when "what trumps what?"  What are the pivotal factors to consider?

-Should a society’s legal precedents be sensitive to the populace-at-large’s ever-changing values?  In other words, should precedents change as society changes, making instruments like The Constitution a “living document?”

Give us your thoughts on the concept of precedent.

Thanks for posting and recommending.

 

A new book updates the 1/6 coup attempt situation

Potential disaster #1: nuclear war with China

Last night, Rachael Maddow did a segment on her show about a book that will be released for sale next week. Two things jumped right out as extraordinarily big deals, not little deals. The first was how much fear there was about Lyin’ Donny’s (the ex-president) mental state. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley was deeply concerned that China was in a state of panic at the site of the 1/6 coup attempt. The Chinese government was afraid that Lyin’ Donny was preparing to start a war against China as a pretext to stay in power. The Chinese viewed the ex-president as a mentally unhinged loose cannon who just might attack China. 

It turns out that Gen. Milley viewed Lyin’ Donny about the same way as the Chinese. That is why he called his counterpart in the Chinese Liberation Army to calm him down and reassure him that the bizarre chaos of the 1/6 coup attempt was just democracy being “sloppy” and everything was under rock solid control in the US. Milley himself was actually unsure of how bad the situation was. In a phone call with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, she repeatedly referred to the ex-president as crazy, a label that Milley explicitly agreed with. Pelosi and Milley discussed ways to stop the crazy ex-president from launching nuclear weapons in the event his poor mental condition led him to want to start a nuclear war.

In short, the situation in the federal government on 1/6 was highly chaotic and uncertain. It was so bad that a top US general was unsure of what our insane president might try to do. So, he (i) called the Chinese army to reassure them an attack on China was not imminent and everything was under control, and (ii) discussed the possibility of nuclear war with the Speaker of the House. 

An article today at The Hill comments:

The book claims Milley even discussed the possibility of the coup with his deputies.

 
“They may try, but they're not going to f------ succeed,” Milley told his deputies while discussing the possibility of a coup, according to the book. “You can't do this without the military. You can't do this without the CIA and the FBI. We're the guys with the guns.”

Potential disaster #2: the prospect of Pence blocking certification of the 2020 election

Another possible disaster was that Vice President Mike Pence was actually looking for ways to keep the ex-president in power. Pence’s search for a way to block or subvert the election came directly from the constant pressure that Lyin’ Donny was putting on him. The ex-president wanted Pence to commit election fraud on a massive, nationwide scale and Pence was craven, autocratic, stupid and corrupt enough to actually look for a way to do it and even discuss an electoral coup with at least one other person.

Clearly, Pence was trying to find a way to block or subvert the 2020 election so that the ex-president could stay in power. Pence called former Vice President Dan Quayle for advice about how he could subvert the election. Quayle warned him off of the idea of blocking or subverting the election. He told Pence to not even think about it because the idea was insane and dangerous. It was also blatantly illegal. Pence complained to Quayle about the pressure the ex-president was putting on him. 

A reminder of how far this anti-democratic, anti-election poison has spread

In the California recall election yesterday, the state’s fascist Republican Party (FRP) was blown out of the water. The governor was not recalled and it was not close. FiveThirtyEight writes:

Our colleagues at the ABC News Decision Desk projected that the recall would fail at 11:37 p.m. Eastern, barely half an hour after polls closed. As of this writing, 67 percent of voters voted against the recall, and 33 percent voted for it. That margin will almost certainly narrow as more votes are counted (the numbers we have right now are mostly mail ballots, which lean very Democratic), but it’s still likely that Newsom will survive by a large margin, perhaps even comparable to his 24-point win in 2018.

But even before the polls closed in California, the lead FRP candidate alleged widespread vote fraud. That candidate, Larry Elder (~43% compared to  ~10% for another leading candidate) is a fascist conspiracy theory crackpot and long-time radical right talk show host in Los Angeles. Elder believes the 2020 election was stolen. He may contest the recall election. As usual for FRP losers, Elder did not produce one shred of credible evidence of vote fraud. 

Elder’s alleged evidence of vote fraud was an alleged statistical analysis, Benford’s Law, of the votes used to detect vote fraud. The problem with that is that the statistical analysis cannot be done before an election. The votes have to be analyzed after an election. Despite that idiotic and fatal flaw, Elder was so enthusiastic about his vote fraud lie that he launched an anti-voter fraud website the day before the election, saying at that time that Newsome had won the election.

Clearly, the FRP’s election fraud poison has spread to states where FRP candidates lose. In states where FRP candidates win, there is no reason to allege fraud. The point is winning, not holding honest elections. That is fascism, or at least anti-democratic authoritarianism. 

Questions: 

1. What or who is the most alarmist and hyperbolic, (A) the FRP with its intense, nationwide attacks on non-existent fraudulent elections and constant resort to crackpot conspiracy theories about illegitimate elections, or (B) people who see and oppose the Republican Party and its attacks on elections as, among other bad things, anti-democratic and authoritarian or fascist? Or, is that a false dilemma logic fallacy, and if so, how is this issue better posited?

2. How close to nuclear Armageddon did the 1/6 coup attempt get us? 

3. How close were we to a subverted 2020 election from the pressure the ex-president put on the craven idiot Pence to subvert it?

4. Are people who do not see deadly threat from the FRP asleep at the switch, deluded by FRP propaganda and disinformation, or something else?