Right-wing office-holders keep blowing up the norms of good government and democracy.
Just this month, consider Jim Jordan using a congressional committee to try to sabotage the Donald Trump “hush-money” trial, revelations of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s secret acceptance of millions of dollars in fun and travel from a rich Texas conservative, and a Texas judge’s bizarre decision that his political preferences can take an FDA-approved drug off the market.
Justice is blind. Ideally, judges and justices are independent, and maybe somewhat honest. Thus, they’re supposed to report gifts they receive.
Clarence Thomas has accepted millions of dollars of gifts – for example, a $500,000 trip one year, taking the donor’s jet to Indonesia and then island-hopping on the donor’s huge yacht, and other such trips – from billionaire Harlan Crow.
Thomas’s ethics are minimal. He’s declined to recuse himself from cases his wife is directly involved in and cases on issues she gets paid to lobby for. He reported only one gift from Crow, many years ago. Usually Thomas ignores complaints; but this one worried him enough that at least he offered a lame excuse, that, early on, someone said he didn’t have to report gifts from close friends. Crow is an influential conservative Thomas met as a justice, and the gifts are huge.
By comparison, when I started writing Sunday columns I refused to let anyone buy me lunch or coffee except friends I’d known for decades.
The Senate will belatedly try to tighten the rules, and Thomas says he’ll report future gifts; but will Chief Justice John Roberts do anything?
Federal District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk gave the judiciary system another jolt while undermining the FDA’s reliance on science to approve drugs.
Our safety depends on the FDA basing decisions on science, not politics and ideology. I’m sure there are some close calls; but consider mifeprestone. The FDA studied scientific data and reached a conclusion that experience has validated. In 23 years on the market it has proved extremely safe and more than 99% effective.
However, Judge Kacsmaryk doesn’t approve of abortions. Mifeprestone can be used to end pregnancies. Therefore he’s suspended sales, although the order is stayed pending appeal. The same day, a a judge in Washington State reached the opposite conclusion.
Meanwhile, as we all know, a Manhattan grand jury has indicted former president Donald Trump on 34 felony counts related to paying Stormy Daniels to keep quiet. Since Trump reimbursed Donald Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and “fixer” what Cohen paid Daniels, and Cohen was convicted criminally for his role in the scheme, Trump’s indictment is legally reasonable. Maybe he’s not guilty of any criminal conduct. There’s a well-known way to establish that: litigate the case and, if you can’t get it dismissed on pretrial motions, let a jury decide. That used to be called “the American Way.”
Instead, a congressman known for evading subpoenae from congressional committees, Jim Jordan, has (a) subpeonaed a former prosecutor, (b) sought secret grand jury materials, and (c) wasted a bunch of money holding hearings in New York City designed to undermine Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg’s credibility. Jordan is flagrantly placing a fat thumb on the scales of justice. And we’re footing the bill.
Even the conservative 5th Circuit appellate court won’t uphold Kacsmaryk’s dangerous ruling. Public pressure reversed the Tennessee Legislature’s unprecedented expulsion of two Black progressives. But give these termites a chance, they’ll eat what’s left of our democracy.
– 30 –
[The above column appeared Sunday, 16 April 2023, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper's website on the newspaper's website, and on KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and on KTAL (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/) and be available on both stations’ websites.]
[It may make sense to be more specific about just how bad Kacsmaryk’s mifeprestone decision was, in basic ways:
> a key requirement for any lawsuit is “standing,” which required the people bring suit must have suffered actual injury because of the law. Here’ plaintiffs were doctors who “might have to treat a patient who’d taken the drug.”
> with regard to lack of safety, Judge says FDA didn’t follow procedures to ensure safety, when 23 years’ experience has confirmed safety. By contrasts, a way higher percentage of Tylenol users go to the ER than mifeprestone users.
> He dredges up the Comstock Act “leud and lascivious” language that was used in the 19th Century, before birth control was discussed in polite company, but makes no sense in 2023. Is medicine pornographic? Amazingly, this is the same law Margaret Sanger had to battle more than a century ago.
> The judge used “unborn humans” to refer to fetuses, and even said they were sometimes “inaccurately” called fetuses! This is a weak effort to establish constitutional rights (such as free speech and freedom of religion) for fetuses. As he’s a mere district court judge, he’s off base citing a concept neither statute nor the U.S. Supreme Court has even recognized. ]
[With regard to Clarence Thomas, stories duly recite that Crow’s company hasn’t had a case before the Court during this time, but Crow is associated with the American Enterprise Institute and ___, and perhaps other entities, that frequently file big lawsuits, and Thomas has voted for their positions on every such lawsuit that has reached the Supreme Court. Even if Crow and Thomas never discussed issues that reached the Court, how could thirty years of receiving goods and services (in some years, valued at more than your annual salary) from someone NOT have a little influence on you? How would we feel if a district court judge paid, say, $100,000 a year was secretly getting $120,000 trips and gifts annually from the Homebuilders Association, or the Chamber of Commerce, or George Soros? ]
[These folks are doing a great job of weakening key institutions we depend on. I might not mind if they were attacking our systemic economic inequality and the conservative hogwash that suggests such inequality is natural or inevitable, and that our wealthy corporations and individuals have nothing to do with it. But, sadly, they buy whatever the moneyed class is selling, uncritically. ]
 |
© Peter Goodman |
The playbook needs a refresh. Relentless effort to deface the word “Democracy” morphed into, “threats to democracy,” is at minimum tiring…as though it's a remake of Groundhog Day.
ReplyDeleteForemost, the article lacks substance and accuracy. For humor’s sake let’s put “threats to democracy” to the test. Would this include a District Attorney (DA) who has weaponized his legal capacity to pursue an indictment for a crime that he - himself cannot name? What is the crime? (Hint: no one knows). History has outlined this play (akin to Putin poisoned Nalvany) as Mr. Alvin Bragg moves to prosecute the top GOP contender for 2024 for non-crimes; least let us not forget, Bragg ran on his campaign platform to ‘Bring Trump to Justice.’
Second, it’s imperative to highlight this article left out key facts, perhaps willfully: 1) Bragg initiated a 34-count indictment of Donald Trump with the exclusion of an actual crime. According to the Bragg indictment, Trump attempted to conceal a crime by “falsifying business records.” In the 34 times that accusation is repeated, not once does the indictment say what that crime is. 2) NDA’s - not a crime. 3) The NDA in question, Braff asserts, interfered with the 2016 election, yet cites entries in the indictment beginning in 2017. Huh? 4) Bragg claims, “we go after the bad guys” while simultaneously dropping countless felony charges against violent criminals (dereliction of duty perhaps). 5) The actual misdemeanor in question exceeds the statue of limitations. Finally, 6) Bragg has no jurisdiction to enforce Federal law.
Next, let’s move onto Jim Jordan, as the article did not mention the specifics of why Jordan intervened. Simply, why are taxpayers footing the bill of Federal funds for DA’s to leverage? If so, disclosure please.
Almost there, Clarance Thomas – Seriously, are we going to completely avoid the topic of Hunter Biden. Of course we are. Inconvenient truths. On cue, selective outrage takes center stage.
Finally, FDA. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if a therapy / medication were available to cure ‘Liberal Cognitive Dissonance.’ Alas, infusions of facts, logic, science, reason, and simple critical thinking fail to limit this legitimate liberal affliction. More than half the county would certainly appreciate the relief from their inflictions.
While the author is clearly a partisan liberal, it would refreshingly entertaining to read an opinion that is not arduously predictable. There is hope; sadly however, some are limited in their capacity to view the imperfections of humanity though a wide angle, rather than in the silos of ‘they vs. them.’
Thanks for reading blog, and for your long comment.
DeleteA stray question: does being a major candidate for a major party’s presidential nomination provide immunity against being indicted for alleged crimes?
Bragg and others in New York have brought similar charges against others from both parties (as well as against businessfolk.) The basic crime is lying in your accounting entries, a misdemeanor unless done in relation to another crime, such as election fraud (or evading income tax), in which case it’s a felony. That’s fairly straightforward, and I believe it was well pled. I’m kind of guessing you haven’t read the indictment and are repeating some half-digested claim by a commentator that there’s no crime. We should both read the indictment, perhaps.
By the way, if the legal objections you suggest were valid legal objections, that could get the indictment quashed or the case dismissed on an early motion, I assume Trump’s lawyers would move to do so. For example, the claim that “Bragg has no jurisdiction to enforce federal law,” by which I’m figuring you mean that he can’t count a federal crime as the predicate offense to create a felony charge, that is a reasonable argument that I would be you $100 against your $10 will fail in court if tried; but Trump’s lawyers can and will try it if they think it has a chance. So far, on the state of the decisions in other cases, nothing bars this, and it appears that he can do it.
As to Bragg, he prosecutes white-collar crime because (a) it often does more real harm than some individual violations (such as prostitution and marijuana use) and because he’s got Wall Street in his jurisdiction. So far, he seems to have a pretty good record.
As to Jordan: he’s interfering with a prosecution; it’s hard to imagine what serious federal purpose he has, or why it couldn’t wait until after the prosecution succeeds or fails. What is the specific reason for the intervention? Believe me, if I felt that trading insults and labels would accomplish anything, I could more than match you for wit, vileness, vocabulary, and variety.
The sarcasm about “liberal cognitive dissonance” is kind of infantile.
I do agree thoroughly that we should maintain and expand out “capacity to view the imperfections of human angle through a wide angle, rather than in the silos of ‘we vs. them.’” Toward that end, I regularly discuss matters with folks I don’t necessarily agree with, and do so on my radio show. Wednesday we’ll have two city councilors and two conservative critics. Feel free to tun
Contrary to ignorance, Goodman's op/ed playbook is on point. Whereas Goodman unabashedly admits a 'liberal bias' regarding his opinion on public policy and elected leaders, he questions the actions and machinations of all political affiliations; i.e. calling out Democrat Mayor Miyagishima regarding police oversight, appointment of unqualified judge, etc. Those who defend the GOP against Goodman's narrative do so with overt confirmation bias writ large rather than spirited debate on the issues and/or conduct cited.
ReplyDeleteFor example, rather than debate the merits of the 10th Amendment 'states rights' vs. Federal intervention of a local prosecution of an ex-president, an ignorant person expresses agreement with Jim Jordon's argument re: Federal funds leveraged by DA's to leverage completely missing the point of Federalism imbued by Constitutional codification. As such, an ignorant person reveals one's paucity of logic in favor of GOP status quo claims of hegemony without citing precedent or argument in favor of Jordon's untested proclamation of Federal oversight.
Worse, an ignorant person purports to address Goodman's concern re: the Clarence Thomas Conflict of Interest issue only to employ the very lame "WHAT ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN?" deflection as an argument. An absolute failure of logical intellect.
Finally, an ignorant person completely glosses over Goodman's FDA concerns by attacking liberalism, 'cognitive dissonance', etc. without expressing an understanding or sound rebuttal of how the FDA analyzes, reviews and approves drugs for safety in the USA. The salient concern is that a so-called 'conservative judge' in Texas deferred to his religious/political beliefs to suddenly rule against a FDA Abortifacient without scientific/medical analysis more that 20 years after the fact; the drug in question is statistically safer than Tylenol and Viagra.
Ignorant people are certainly entitled to their opinion. And they can support untenable, illogical reasoning and articles of faith in service of their 'cult of personality' leadership preferences. But they reveal that weakness of their puerile punditry and confirmation bias similar to elementary children name-calling others not included in their collective clique on the playground.
Sadly, that is 'arduously predictable'.