Monday, July 27, 2020

JOHN LEWIS: IN MEMORIAM



THE MAN AND THE MISSION
Civil rights icon Georgia Congressman John Lewis died July 17, 2020. Tributes flowed in from across the political spectrum and cable news networks devoted hours of coverage to his life and times. We each have different views of Lewis and his accomplishments, indeed of his significance in contemporary America. Today we share those views individually:


Henry: A Man Who Made the World a Better Place
Time and place determine much about how
we evaluate any person. Human beings live a linear existence. One event follows another. At times we have trouble linking the success of the later action or event with what preceded it. In baseball, for example, I believe the starter or the middle reliever is as important to the victory as the closer who finishes the game and secures the win. In some people, we have been fortunate to have those who demonstrated “persistence of the
spirt” so we can credit them with making a difference. We honor figures all along that timeline who bend the curve toward justice in different ways and for different reasons.
In John Lewis, we had a man who deserves honoring for many reasons. He made a
difference in different ways. Quantitative or objective facts, significant though they are, tell only part of the story with a man like John Lewis. He was the conscience, the gadfly, the man who, in his own lexicon, made “good trouble.”  He got up after being knocked down time after time. He never stopped fighting the good fight for justice and he always did it with love. He symbolized hope for a nation. His advocacy for justice through nonviolent confrontation reminded us of our highest ideals and that we must always act to advance them.

John Lewis, from all we can tell, acted justly, loved mercy, walked humbly with his God, and made the world a better place than he found it when he arrived 80 years ago. What else can we ask of any mortal being?

Rob: A Record for the Ages
Bill Parcells won Super Bowls and coached his way into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He had a saying: “You are what your record says you are.” John Lewis had a record that says if they had a hall of fame for freedom fighters, he’d have been inducted a long time ago. Just think about some of the things John Lewis did with his life:
·    started civil rights work at age 17;

·    as head of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), at age 23
was the youngest speaker at the 1963 March on Washington;


·    led the March 7, 1965, march on the Edmund Pettus Bridge that resulted in
Bloody Sunday at which he was beaten by police, leaving him with a fractured skull. The events of that day directly led to passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a law that added half a million black voters to the rolls in the South within a year, 10 million more by 1980, and the election of four hundred black elected officials within three years;

·    thirty-four years in Congress where he led countless fights on voting rights, civil rights, gun control, and health care.
John Lewis was sometimes called the “the conscience of U.S. Congress.” He may have been and that’s another reason to honor him and mourn his death. In the final analysis, though, John Lewis deserved the accolades because of what he did. Period. 

Woodson: Is there no room for disagreement?
Was John Lewis’ life significant? I posed that question to my children on July 18th.  Two accused me of being factious, insensitive, and even garish. My intention was to encourage analysis of Lewis’ tactics, strategies and results, not to be facetious, insensitive or garish.

Failure to examine our leaders’ decisions is problematic, especially if their goals are economic, political and social parity for African Americans. 

Lewis nearly lost his life on Bloody Sunday, marching for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Today, the Act stands stripped of significant provisions and voter suppression of African Americans is pervasive. 
 Hospitalized for fractured skull, John Lewis
Lewis spoke at the March on Washington in 1963 about the injustice of African American economic inequality. The economic condition of African Americans remains stagnant. Lewis demanded laws to prevent police excesses against African Americans. Police excesses continue. Twice Lewis backed Obama’s efforts to become President. Today the White House is occupied by a misogynistic white supremacist. 
 
The speech that Lewis gave that day was not his original version. Conservatives in the civil rights movement persuaded Lewis to edit his speech.

Lewis’ original speech contained the following:

“In good conscience, we cannot support wholeheartedly the administration’s civil rights bill… it is too little… too late.”
“This nation is still a place of cheap political leaders who build their careers on immoral compromises.”

“We will not wait for the courts to act… for the President, the Justice Department, nor Congress, but we will take matters into our own hands and create a source of power, outside of any national structure.”

“To those who have said, ‘Be patient and wait,’ we must say that ‘patience’ is a dirty and nasty word.”

“We will march through the South, through the heart of Dixie, the way Sherman did.”

              
                                                            Click on image to hear John Lewis speech. Video courtesy of YouTube.

Lewis chose compromise? Did his compromise change the trajectory of his leadership? On compromise,  Malcolm X said that if a man has a knife 9 inches into
your back and pulls it back 3, the knife is still 6 inches into your back.  Was Lewis or Malcolm right?  We will not know the answers unless we are free to ask the questions.
 

Monday, July 20, 2020

THE SUPREMES: UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, PRESENT AND FUTURE


The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2019-20 term has ended and the presidential election lies only about three months away. A link exists
between the Court’s work and presidential elections because nothing so symbolizes our divisive politics as control of the Court and the opportunity to shape its future.
Progressives viewed the term just completed with trepidation while conservatives had high hopes. The lineup of cases presented numerous opportunities for the conservative, Republican-appointed, majority to assert itself
on fractious issues. At the end, progressives breathed a sigh of relief and conservatives whined. One man – Chief Justice John Roberts – caused both reactions.
Chief Justice John Roberts
This is the Roberts Court
The spring of 2020 was an extraordinary time for Roberts. Besides presiding over the Trump impeachment trial, Roberts voted in
the majority in an astounding 97% of the cases the Court decided this term. Since the chief justice assigns writing the opinion in cases in which he votes in the majority, Roberts had total control of the Court’s voice. He wrote himself the decisions on the immigration case involving people brought to the United States as children that the administration might deport and the subpoena cases involving President Trump’s financial records. He strategically assigned other cases, like giving Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch the opinion in the case holding the sex discrimination provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act applicable to sexual orientation.
             
Roberts made clear he cares most about preserving the Court’s institutional reputation even if that overrides ideological and political interests. He sided with the Court’s liberals in a Louisiana abortion-rights case, even though he’d voted on the other side in a nearly-identical Texas case four years before. His position acknowledged the Court shouldn’t reverse a precedent so soon just because the lineup of justices changed. In the Trump subpoena cases, Roberts wrote for a 7-2 majority that no one, not even a president, is above the law.

When one justice exerts such overwhelming influence and does so in such a narrow way
on a court balanced on a knife’s edge on so many hot button issues, neither side can get comfortable. Conservatives railed about Roberts this term, claiming he abandoned the cause. One senator said he should resign. Liberals cheered his votes on immigration and abortion, but those votes rested on technical and procedural grounds, not philosophy. In subsequent cases on the same subjects with different facts or procedural circumstances, he could go the other way. 

The Future
With the election straight ahead, it’s fair to ask
where the Court goes from here. Two members of the liberal wing, Ruth Ginsburg and Steven Breyer, are over 80. The winner of the 2020 election will likely replace them. If Joe Biden
wins, his nominees wouldn’t “flip” the ideological balance. That would require the resignation or death of one of the five conservatives during Biden’s term. We can’t imagine any of them resigning and handing their seats to a Democratic president, barring a debilitating illness that made continuing in the job impossible. Of course, anyone can (1) die of a sudden, unexpected medical condition or (2) get run over by a bus. Nobody should expect either of those.

So, what would flip the Court? To make that a certainty, Democrats probably have to win the next four presidential elections. The ages of the current justices and the propensity most have for staying as long as possible while hoping a president of the same party as the president who appointed them can fill their seat, means most of the current membership of the court will remain in place 15-to-20 years or longer.

The two Trump appointees – Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh—are 52 and 55 respectively.
Neither will leave anytime soon. If they serve until the ages Ginsberg and Breyer are now, expect that the winner of the 2052 election would replace them.

The three other conservatives – Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas – are
older, but not that old. Roberts, 65, could stay another 20 years, meaning the winner of the 2040 election might get to replace him. Thomas, the Court’s most rigid conservative, is 72 and has been the subject of retirement rumors he has denied. If Trump wins the 2020 election he might step down, but he won’t give Biden his seat if he can help it. Thomas could remain on the Court a long time, perhaps until after the 2036 election. Alito, 70, also could serve another 15 years if he wants to.

The two other liberals, Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor, are 60 and 66,
respectively.  Changing the Court’s ideological makeup probably means a Democrat must win not only in 2020 but also in 2024, 2028, and 2032. That would probably assure that a Democrat replaces Kagan and Sotomayor and is positioned to replace a conservative who leaves during those years.

This analysis presumes neither party makes a “mistake” with a nominee – that no Democratic appointee lines up with the conservatives and no justice appointed by a Republican ends up voting mostly with liberals. We assume no Republican president will appoint a David Souter who so disappointed George H.W. Bush and his supporters. He, of course, also nominated Thomas, so conservatives really don’t have much reason for complaining about Bush 41.

Democrats have never made judicial appointments as important a part of their electoral calculus as Republicans. The reality of the situation with the Supremes now and in the future counsels a different approach.