It's Not About Removal Of One Judge

Charles Pierce is referring to Donald Trump's attack on Judge Gonzalo Curiel when he writes "Part of the conservative brand within the Republican Party has been to attack the integrity of the judicial process, and of the individual judges working within it, every time a decision comes down that sets the flying monkeys aloft. "

Exhibit A is the case of the late Terri Schiavo of Florida, kept alive, long after death, by a John Ellis Bush pursuing a heartless right-wing agenda.

There is now an Exhibit B. It is Brock Turner.  Recognizing a political opportunity when he sees it, according to a blogger for Crooks and Liars

Conservative Texas Congressman Ted Poe (R) on Thursday lashed out at Judge Aaron Persky after he sentenced former Stanford student Brock Turner to six months in jail for the sexual assault of an unconscious woman.

"The woman, just 22 years of age at the time, was being raped and the rapist was caught in the act," Poe explained in a speech delivered on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. "Brock was found guilty of the sexual assault on three counts. His sentence, a mere six months in prison and three years probation."

"Because the judge said a prison sentence would have a 'severe impact' on him," the Texas Republican continued. "Well, isn't that the point? Mr. Speaker, the punishment for rape should be longer than a semester in college."

Semesters don't last six months, but Mr. Poe may be out-of-touch and the report continues "Poe, a former criminal court judge, read a portion of the victim's emotional statement, and then called for Persky to be removed from the bench.... 'Justice demands the judge be removed!' He exclaimed."









Well, no, it doesn't.  The day before Poe's outburst, Mark Joseph Stern (ironically) had criticized the backlash of liberals to Judge Persky and explained

America’s criminal justice system has been distorted in other ways—almost always by well-meaning activists—in an effort to dispense the appropriate punishment to sexual abusers. “Propensity evidence,” or evidence that a defendant committed prior bad acts and is thus more likely to have committed the crime for which he is being tried, is generally barred from the courtroom. That rule, however, does not apply in sexual assault cases, allowing the prosecutor to present evidence that the defendant committed previous sexual assaults. This is cheating. It allows the prosecution to make a weaker case, trusting that the jury will presume that, since the defendant has committed rape previously, he probably did so this time, too. Two state supreme courts have invalidated this exception, with one explaining that it “violates a defendant’s right to be tried for the offense for which he is indicted.” But it remains the rule through most of the judiciary.

Stern understands that evidence of prior criminal acts, sexual and/or violent or otherwise, can be presented as mitigating or aggravating factors in sentencing. Admitting it in sexual assault cases- solely- is on its face a double standard. It may be unclear whether its admissability should be expanded or further restricted, but the principle Stern emphasizes is not:  "What Brock Turner did was sickening; what he received as punishment is far less than what he deserved. But eroding due process and threatening judicial independence is not the way to bring his victim justice."

The question arises: was Representative Poe born yesterday? Surely, as one who served on the criminal bench, he is aware that if any Judge were removed once he or she issued an excessively lenient sentence upon a defendant in a criminal  case, there would be few if any judges remaining. Even the more punitive judges periodically go  too easy on a defendant. They have a lot of cases, and it's what they do.

The Texas congressman knows what he's saying and what he's doing.  Of contempt for Judge Curiel, Pierce writes "He, Trump is not an aberration. He is an exaggeration, nothing more than that." Many progressives are exorcised about the lenient sentence meted out to one individual, Brock Turner. However, from Terry Schiavo to Merrick Garland to Mary Barzee Flores to Aaron Persky, Ted Poe and other Republicans are taking the long game, and the target is the judicial independence Stern cites. As a presidential election awaits, it's yet one more thing to ponder for skeptics of Hillary Clinton flirting with Donald Trump.







I'm taking a short hiatus from blogging. Please come back on June 15 for more incisive, always humble, commentary. 


Share |

Sticking With Trump

In the short term, Donald Trump is in less trouble than he appears to be at the moment.

He's not in trouble because Republican members of  Congress are having second thoughts about his candidacy.  In the wake of his comments about Judge Gonzalo Curiel, two of the least conservative members of the Party's Senate caucus, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Susan Collins of Maine, have sought an apology from the presumptive presidential nominee.

According to Politico, even some supporters are highly critical. South Carolina Senator Tim Scott maintained Trump's remarks "were toxic and they were inappropriate and they were offensive and they were wrong. His walking it back was to some extent a sign of leadership, but we've got a long way to go." North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis asserted "He's still got some work to do to establish confidence in people that would be inclined to support him." Senator Hatch of Utah acknowledged "you know those remarks were completely inappropriate."  Lindsey Graham, never a big fan of Trump, previously had stated "There'll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary."








No, there won't be, not in his Party, and that's why these reactions as well as others ultimately will harm Trump very little.   Once the convention comes and goes, the GOP will be largely unified behind Trump's candidacy. As former Governor and Democratic National Committee chairperson John Dean explained Wednesday evening to Chris Hayes, Mark Kirk and other officeholders who withdraw support for the nominee will find that not only will Republican voters resent them, Democratic voters will not rally to their side. It comes close to a lose-lose and they know it.

However, the defections are a sign that Trump faces an enormous hurdle.  Trump didn't get blowback from his ethnically offensive comments because fellow Republicans suddenly got a twinge of guilt or conscience.  They're looking to save their own hide or that of their Party.

However, they're not reassessing their extremist ideology.  Ohio Governor John Kasich reportedly told Fox News on Wednesday "We’re like two companies. You know, we have a different vision, a different value system and a different objective. So it’s pretty hard to put that together. But the divisiveness, the division, the name-calling, it just doesn’t go down well with me.”

Kasich evidently isn't aware that Trump has gotten religion, conservative religion, on Medicare and Social Security..  He added  "And then when you look at the entitlement stuff — ‘We don’t have to deal with entitlements’ — are you kidding me? Of course we have to deal with entitlements. We have to modernize them." (Add "modernize" to "preserve and protect" as the conservative euphemism for cutting earned benefits.)

It's reducing earned benefits, arguing workers are overpaid, opposing a federal minimum wage, proposing tax cuts for the wealthy, applauding torture, opposing reproductive freedom, and on and on and on. Charlie Peters recognizes "Trump is not an aberration. He is an exaggeration."  When Republicans inch away from the candidate, it is a bad sign. But when they realize he's fully on their train, they will accept him as the conductor.  It's a bad option, but the other is worse.

Share |

Normalizing Racism

There is an almost irresistible temptation to applaud Republicans who have condemned Donald Trump's criticism of Judge Gonzalo Curiel because he is of "Mexican heritage" (accurate) or "Mexican" (inaccurate).

Talk-show host, blogger, RedState founder, forced-birth advocate, and #Never Trump guy Erick Erickson wrote "This was racism plain and simple." Recently floated as a possible third-party candidate, Nebraska senator and staunch conservative Ben Sasse tweeted "Public Service Announcement: Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of 'racism.'" House Speaker Paul Ryan, fresh off an endorsement of Trump he won't retract, contended the candidate's remark is "sort of the textbook definition of a racist comment."








Hold your applause. When I Googled "textbook definition of racism," up popped the Merriam- Webster definition of racism, "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

One might argue Trump has implied that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities. However, Trump never suggested that Curiel was a bad judge because he is Mexican or Mexican-American; rather, that he is biased against Trump because "he's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico."  Nor was there any suggestion whatsoever that Judge Curiel is inherently inferior because of his ethnic background.

Mexicans are not of one single, homogenous race, with even most Mexicans (Mestizos) possessing a mix of indigenous and European traits. When Trump speaks of Mexicans or Mexican-Americans, he is (knowingly or not) referring to a race. The candidate's assumption that a fellow born and raised in Indiana is "a Mexican" is horrific. Still, not a textbook definition of racism, nor even close.

The assertion of Sasse, Erickson, and Ryan is inaccurate. Additionally, however, the position of Speaker Ryan, the man otherwise recognized by Charles Peters as the "biggest fake ever," is harmful. Maintaining that Trump's comments about Judge Gonzalo Curiel are "the textbook definition of racism" he added "Do I believe Hillary Clinton is the answer? I do not." Steve M. explains

notice what happens every time a Republican makes a statement like this: The notion that Hillary Clinton is a genuinely awful person gets reinforced. ("Yes, what Donald Trump said is outrageous, but at least he's not -- ick! ptui -- Hillary!") It sends the message that Trump is bad but Hillary is unspeakable. ...

The flip side of this message is: Really, what's so awful about what Trump is saying? It's bad, but it's not that bad. What Ryan and others are doing is defining deviancy down.

We have a candidate, Ryan suggests, who is a classical racist- but that's not so bad, not as bad, he argues, as Hillary Clinton.  "I'm not going to defend these kinds of comments because they're indefensible," says the man who immediately exonerated the individual making the remarks.  The significance of spouting racism or being a racist has been effectively minimized, perhaps eliminated. Nice work, Paul.










Share |

Not Proletarian, Not Justified

On Sunday's Face the Nation, National Review's Reihan Salam argued

there's actually a version of what he's saying that is, in my view, defensible. He does not make that case. Time again, rather than making, you know, an affirmative case for his use on immigration and trade, he actually keeps getting draw in in to talking about his personal business affairs rather than talking about the unemployment rate.... And you see some smart people, like Tom Cotton, the senator from Arkansas, he is looking around the bend and he's actually trying to be very cautious. Being a good soldier for Trump, but also recognizing there is this national constituency in the country, how do I speak to it in a coherent and defensible way?

Charlie Peters responds

First, I agree with Salam. Tom Cotton is indeed around the bend. But the rest of this argument is nothing more than the long-standing conservative political strategy of forcing racist gooberism into its Sunday Best and repackaging its hate as justifiable proletarian outrage.

It could not be repackaged as justifiable proletarian outrage were it not for the meme of Trump as working-class hero.    Alas, that meme is valid only compared to the applicability to what were then his Republican rivals. Using data from exit polls, on May 3 Nate Silver explained

Trump voters’ median income exceeded the overall statewide median in all 23 states, sometimes narrowly (as in New Hampshire or Missouri) but sometimes substantially. In Florida, for instance, the median household income for Trump voters was about $70,000, compared with $48,000 for the state as a whole.... 

Ted Cruz voters have a similar median income to Trump supporters — about $73,000. Kasich’s supporters have a very high median income, $91,000, and it has exceeded $100,000 in several states. Rubio’s voters, not displayed in the table above, followed a similar pattern to Kasich voters, with a median income of $88,000.

Many of the differences reflect that Republican voters are wealthier overall than Democratic ones, and also that wealthier Americans are more likely to turn out to vote, especially in the primaries. However, while Republican turnout has considerably increased overall from four years ago, there’s no sign of a particularly heavy turnout among “working-class” or lower-income Republicans.

"The median income for Clinton and Sanders voters — $61,000 for each candidate," Silver adds, "is generally much closer to the overall median income in each state," though even it is a little high.  The numbers are skewed, admittedly, because blacks and hispanics, who earn less than non-hispanic whites, are overwhelmingly Democratic. Thus, with virtually all non-Trump primary voters being non-hispanic whites

we can ask whether they make lower incomes than other white Americans, for instance. The answer is “no.” The median household income for non-Hispanic whites is about $62,000,4 still a fair bit lower than the $72,000 median for Trump voters.

Likewise, although about 44 percent of Trump supporters have college degrees, according to exit polls — lower than the 50 percent for Cruz supporters or 64 percent for Kasich supporters — that’s still higher than the 33 percent of non-Hispanic white adults, or the 29 percent of American adults overall, who have at least a bachelor’s degree.

Trump voters may feel, or think they are being, left behind and may not be upper middle-class in socio-economic level.  However, economically, the Trump voters simply are not working-class but are generally affluent.  To suggest a stereotype: cowboy hats, big SUV's, and beer-drinking don't define the working class economically.

Neither does racism or the much more common racial hostility. Nonetheless, Tom Cotton, Paul Ryan, and other Republicans believe it necessary to repackage something approximating "racist gooberism" as justifiable proletarian outrage.

Whatever it is, it's not proletarian outrage, nor justifiable.   At a rally last week in San Diego, Trump lashed out at the judge presiding over two civil suits pertaining to Trump Unitversity when he charged "The judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great, I think that's fine. You know what? I  think the Mexicans are going to end up loving Donald Trump when I give all these jobs, okay?"  On June 2, Trump reiterated "I'm building the wall, I'm building the wall. I have a Mexican judge."

Admittedly, the candidate did then add of the midwestern Curiel (born of parents from Mexico) "he's of Mexican heritage. He should have recused himself, not only for that, for other things."  In an interview the next day with Jake Tapper, Trump slipped- or not- when he stated "He's Mexican."







It's bad enough that Trump is threatening the independence of the federal judiciary. Additionally, arguing that judges of Mexican ancestry won't be impartial in some cases suggests that he can condemn people of a particular ethnic group, religion, or even gender and then claim an individual with those characteristics cannot adjudicate a case he is involved in.

The intolerance, however, goes further and is captured by Newt Gingrich's criticism on Sunday: "This judge was born in Indiana. He is an American, American, period. When you come to America, you get to become an American."

On occasion, Trump has hastily added "of Mexican heritage." But he has at least twice referred to a guy born in Indiana as a Mexican. Curiel's parents, too, became American citizens, because when you come legally to America, you get to become an American.  It's what you do.








Share |

Andrew Cuomo, Sometimes Right

In a high-profile action, Bob Bryson soon will be arrested by New York State Police.

You probably don't know Bob Bryson, Moderator of the Presbytery of Northern New York (state). But soon you will, if the February prediction of Rahul Saksena, a staff attorney at non-profit advocacy organization Palestine Legal, is borne out. Saksena then quivered at the prospect of passage by the legislature in Albany of an anti-Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions bill.

Governor Cuomo has pre-empted the legislature by issuing an executive order. According to Salon anti-Israel obsessive Ben Norton, it "will not permit its own investment activity to further the BDS campaign in any way, shape or form, whether directly or indirectly” and adds that “the State of New York unequivocally rejects the BDS campaign and stands firmly with Israel.”








“It’s frightening to think there could be New York state employees scouring the internet for pro-BDS Facebook posts, tweets and news articles, and blacklisting individuals based on their political viewpoints,” Saksena now contends. “It’s 21st century McCarthyism.”

Saksena believes "It’s 21st century McCarthyism" because such governmental actions “are disturbing attempts to punish and chill constitutionally protected speech.”

And so Bryson should contact his criminal defense lawyer and arrange to turn himself in to authorities.  Two years ago to this month, the Presbyterian Church of the USA, the largest of the three Presbyterian denominations, announced it had "narrowly approved divestment from three United States companies doing business in Israel-Palestine."

It will surprise Mr. Bryson, whatever his personal view of the BDS movement (which the PCUSA says is separate from its action) or his church's relationship to it, that his speech has been endangered. It is unlikely that managers whose pension funds no longer will be favored by the state are feverisly contemplating prosecution on criminal charages.

And in a related matter, we forget that as of August, 2014

Jordan refuses entry to or forcibly deports Palestinian refugees escaping Syria, in clear breach of its international obligations, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Jordan has officially banned entry to Palestinians from Syria since January 2013 and has forcibly deported over 100 who managed to enter the country since mid-2012, including women and children.

The 44-page report, “Not Welcome: Jordan’s Treatment of Palestinians Escaping Syria,” is based on interviews with more than 30 people affected by the non-admission policy. Human Rights Watch also documented Jordan’s withdrawal of Jordanian citizenship from some Palestinians who had lived in Syria for many years and who have been detained or deported to Syria without identity documents. Jordan’s uncompromising treatment of Palestinians fleeing Syria contrasts with its treatment of Syrian nationals, at least 607,000 of whom have been accepted into the country since the beginning of the Syrian conflict. Before the March 2011 uprising began, Syria was home to at least 520,000 Palestinian refugees.

Jordan's lack of generosity is stunning and significant given that

According to Article 34 of the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, "The Contracting States shall as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalisation of refugees," and must "make every effort to expedite naturalisation proceedings" – the opposite of what happened to the Palestinians in every Arab country in which they settled, save Jordan. 

Now that Jordan is giving the back of the hand to Palestinians, the latter face similarly rough treatment throughout virtually the entire Arab Mideast. That means, of course, that if only we can pressure Israel through the BDS movement, a new age of freedom and prosperity awaits Palestinians.








Share |

Mine, All Mine

By implication or more directly, Donald Trump has been called (with varying degrees of accuracy) misogynistic, racist, fascist, ignorant, mobbed-up, authoritarian, an insecure money-grubber, a con man, a loser, and so much more.








Add another one, almost inarguable: patronizing.  In a video played at the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference on May 20, he vowed "I"m going to win and we're going to take care of everybody. We're going to take care of you. You're going to like President Trump."

A couple of weeks later at an energy conference in Bismarck, North Dakota, Trump stated "politicians have used you and stolen your votes. They have given you nothing. I will give you everything. I will give you what you've been looking for to (sic) 50 years. I'm the only one." Moments later, he would add "you know what? I think the Mexicans are going to end up loving Donald Trump when I give all these jobs, okay?"

These are not jobs for Donald Trump to give, like chocolate Easter egg bunnies or toys at Christmas. However, if he's daddy and his subjects are children, it all makes sense.

Then last week at an outdoor rally in Redding, California, Trump- pointing to someone in the crowd- remarked

We had a case where we had an African-American guy who is a friend of mine- great fan, great guy. In fact, I want to find out what's going on with him. You what I- look at my African-American over there- look at him.








The tokenism jumps out. But even more interesting and even more characteristic of Trump was the reference to "my African-American,not "my African-American supporter" or even "my African-American friend" but "my African-American."

No wonder Donald Trump is "going to take care" of everybody.  Possessions can be very, very valuable. Okay?








Share |

Obama And Schultz: Perfect Together

As everyone knows, Democratic National Committee chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz has done all she could to ensure the presidential nomination of Hillary Clinton.   In April of 2015 the DNC head so objectively remarked

Secretary Clinton, I think is arguably one of the most qualified people – assuming she announces her candidacy – who have ever run for president. I was proud to support her in 2008. Of course as DNC chair, I will neutrally manage our primary nomination contest, assuming we have one.

Secretary Clinton’s candidacy is another step of progress for women and for my daughters. As the mom of two little girls, a 15-year old and an 11-year old, and my mom who told me in America a little girl can get elected president, and can be anything she wants to be, this is something that I’m very proud to be able to point to when she announces her candidacy – but I say that neutrally, because I will be neutral during the primary. But Secretary Clinton’s a very special, a special leader and a special woman.

The DNC the next month announced that it would sanction all of six (6) pre-convention debates, one to be held the last Saturday before Christmas, among the presidential candidates.  (Negotiations in January between the Sanders and the Clinton camps yielded several additional debates.)  In February, Schultz defended the influence of super delegates, remarking "unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists."










Last year, Charles Pierce reminded us that in 2008 Schultz "was running the DNC's 'Red to Blue' project and famously abstained from supporting three Democratic challengers to incumbent Republicans, once even remarking at a Washington luncheon for Miami-Dade commissioners "I can't say enough good things about (Republican Representative) Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; she has been my friend since I was first elected to office."   And until this past week, Representative Schultz was a good friend to the payday loan industry.

In January, the (New York) Observer observed

Another group, Roots Action, has accumulated over 30,000 signatures in a separate petition. “In addition to her recent attempt to deny the Bernie Sanders campaign access to its own voter files, Wasserman Schultz has tried in other ways to minimize competition for her candidate, Hillary Clinton,” states the Roots Action petition. “In Congress, she has served as a pro-militarist and corporatist tool of the high bidders.”

MoveOn.Org has collected over 60,000 signatures, and Change.org has over 47,000 signatures calling for Ms. Wasserman Schultz’s resignation.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s weak leadership brings nothing but negative attention to the Democratic Party. Democrats must stop delaying the inevitable, and either fire Ms. Wasserman Schultz or push her to resign. She has essentiallybankrupted the DNC during her tenure, and is unreliable in helping Democrats win congressional and senate elections. It is in the best interests of the party to rid itself of Ms. Wasserman Schultz as quickly as possible.

However, Mrs. Schultz has remained in her job, despite opposition from the Sanders' camp, which can recognize as a biased party leader when it sees one, and which during the campaign has increasingly charged that the process is rigged.  Sanders has endorsed Representative Schultz's primary opponeny, Tim Canova, who is clearly more partial to progressive interests than is she, and there is mounting pressure to remove her as party chairperson before the national convention convenes in Philadelphia.

Any public support for Schultz has been tepid- that is, until this week when

Speaking at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in Miami on Friday, President Barack Obama expressed his support for his party's embattled chairwoman — Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz....

"She's had my back, I want to make sure we have her back,” he said.

Obama added that she is "somebody who I don't know how she does it, because she's everywhere all the time, non-stop, and she's a mom and a wife and has been just incredibly supportive of my agenda."  

(And such a frail creature! In related news, the President praised Democratic Rep. Brian Schatz of Hawaii as "somebody who I don't know how he does it, because he's a dad and a husband." Just kidding.)

She was appointed to her position by President Barack Obama five years ago. She blocked a resolution to praise the President for the Iranian nuclear deal, though she later voted for the agreement.. Under significant pressure, she finally has dropped her opposition to legislation reining in payday loan lenders.  Coincidentally, Obama's statement came at the close of  a week in which he revealed that he no longer believes Social Security is an existential threat to the American economy.

Perhaps Schultz has had President Obama's back. But her statements and actions as Democratic National chairperson demonstrate that she has not had the Party's back.  Under the Floridian's watch, the Party got rolled in the 2014 midterm election and currently she is presiding over a nomination battle of increasing rancor, to which she has contributed.  She has had Barack Obama's back, and now he has hers.

All in all, given what we've seen from the White House the last seven years, this shouldn't be at all surprising.









Share |