Super Tuesday and the recent decisions by the Supreme Court seem like a perfect backdrop to the ultimate question in a representative democracy. I can filibuster here, but the question is a fairly simple one to ask, but a very hard one to answer. Do we believe that we are better off with the people (all of the people) being able to have unfettered choices in who represents them? I would say it is pretty clear that the answer to that question has been a resounding no throughout our history.

In the beginning, only land owners could vote and even then they had to resort to the electoral college. African Americans and poor people didn’t get the vote for nearly a century. Women had to wait almost 50 years after that. Finally, younger people could work, pay taxes, and go to war, but they couldn’t vote until after the Vietnam War. Fast forward to the present time and the biggest battles of our times have been the methods used to keep certain people from voting.

The efforts in Colorado, Maine, and Illinois represented the other guard rail that we could place on our democracy. If you don’t want to restrict who can vote then you can restrict who they can vote for. The last nine years has been a circle jerk where each party or group has waited for the other to do the dirty work for them. The Republican party hoped that he would lose at the ballot box and go away. They also said it was the responsibility of the Justice department. The Justice department clearly slow rolled their prosecutions and hoped he would just go away. The cabinet could have used the 25th amendment. Congress could have voted to convict once if not twice. Mitch McConnell himself said it was a job for the courts. Now, the courts are saying it is a job for Congress.

I’m not sure whose failure is the most egregious. Each institution taken by itself could explain its actions. I found the use of the 14th amendment to be problematic at best. At some point some recognized court or institution has to come to an official stance that he participated in insurrection. The January 6th committee danced around it. Jack Smith has been dancing around it. We have been calling it out on cable television and the blogosphere, but there has been nothing definitive or official.

That lands us right back at the opening question. Do we absolutely trust the people to make this call? If the answer is no then it is time to do some hard soul searching. I’d argue that if we were really about letting the people choose their leaders in an unfettered way then he has been told no twice already. That’s a tiny consolation. If we still think it is way too dangerous to allow ordinary people to have the unchecked ability to choose their leaders then we have to seriously reevaluate who we are. I personally think a number of Americans are too stupid to vote and understand the gravity of it. They are easily led and vote against their interests too easily. I also have to acknowledge that the same exact arguments were used against women, African American, and young people voting. Do we bring back literacy tests? Do we bar people with red hats or stupid bumper stickers? Obviously, I speak in jest but if you decide that some people are incapable of doing it properly then you are fundamentally responsible for finding a way to cull the voter rolls in a fair and equitable way. Otherwise, we have to let it ride and fight like hell.

Let’s just say it right up front – the current majority of the Supreme Court doesn’t give a flying fuck about the Constitution, the Rule of Law or you.  Given opportunity after opportunity to be the last line defense of The People against a continuous onslaught on the rule of law and common decency the Court has failed miserably time after time.  John Roberts has presided over the biggest abortion (no pun intended) of jurisprudence in US history, and appears to have lost what little control he had over what can now only be termed the Trump-Thomas Court of Law by and for the Highest Bidder, bought and paid for by Leonard Leo and the billionaire class.

Over the last two decades the Court has unraveled decades (sometimes centuries) of well established constitutional precedent, ruling that money equals speech (for billionaires and corporations), money doesn’t corrupt, gun safety laws are inconvenient to criminals and gun manufacturers, the EPA is a waste of time, political gerrymandering that destroyed state and federal legislatures is OK, unions that protect workers’ rights are tiring for corporations, separation of church and state is a quaint concept, state funding of religious schools is fine, public health policy to protect the health of the nation is unconstitutional, law enforcement can’t be held accountable for abusing the rights of the accused or wrongly convicted, access to reasonable healthcare is not a right, and state funding of campaign to counter billionaires’ money is illegal.  Added to this long list of disasters are the most damaging rulings, which were the gutting of the Voting Rights act and the reversal of Roe v. Wade, which is the first time in United States History that a personal right was taken away.  As I write this, the Trump-Thomas Court is now actually considering reversing the long established principal that US agencies can implement US law (Chevron Rule) and if a bump stock, which turns a rifle into a machine gun actually turns a rifle into a machine gun.  During oral argument Alito remarkably mused that bump stocks should be allowed so people with arthritis can easily fire off 400 rounds a minute.  Finally, Alito and Thomas have already sent the signal that marriage equality and contraception are on the chopping block as abhorrent as that idea is.

On top of all that, the Court is now actively helping TFG avoid prosecution by slow walking his ridiculous claim that a US president has absolute immunity from any criminal prosecution, even for murder.  So get this – in December, US Attorney Jack Smith, so he can get the election interference trial before the People before the next election, begged the Court to hear TFG’s claim that he has absolute immunity .  Oh, NO, says the Court, being all law and order, let it go through the appeals process first.  OK, so Smith does that and the DC Circuit quickly handed down a unanimous ruling that Trump’s claim is nonsense with an opinionthat legal experts say was “masterful”.  Of course, TFG then appeals to the Court, and then, after sitting on it for 16 days, decides that oh, we want to hear the case anyway, even thought there are no legal issues left undecided, pushing their hearing off to late April.  In other words, the Trump-Thomas Court is actively running cover for TFG to get him through the election for the highest office in the land without going to trial for trying to overthrow the US government.  If TFG is elected, it’s then game over for all the federal cases including the one for election interference and the stolen classified documents case.  It’s not just likely, but damn certain that the Court will then step in again and stay the state court cases against him until they carry him feet first out of the White House (whenever that happens) since he’ll never voluntarily leave office if ever handed it again.

And there you have it.  The United States Supreme Court, which is supposed to be the last line of defense against corruption, criminals, bad law, insurrection, and the stripping of constitutional rights is doing just the opposite, throwing The People to TFG and his goons.  And they’re doing it while failing to police themselves against blatant corruption.  As Steven Colbert put it last night, for the election case hearing, Thomas will put his tip jar out for that one. And Sam will be whining about how unfair Americans are toward him.  I mean, he’s just doing his job taking away rights and pandering to religious zealots and gun nuts, right?

I predicted somewhere (I’m not sure if it was here) that the gambit of using the 14th amendment to bar Trump from appearing on the ballot was not going to work ultimately. For the time being we are going to ignore the obvious pollicization of the court and just look at the law before them. My fears were realized when the attorney general of Missouri pulled the stunt I had been waiting for all along.

For those that don’t want to go down the rabbit hole, the attorney general is threatening to hold Joe Biden’s name off of the ballot in Missouri. Has Biden participated in an insurrection or done anything illegal? Of course not. He all but admitted as such.  When the provision for the 14th amendment was written, it was written in such a way for a specific purpose. Belonging to the Confederacy was by itself proof that you had participated in an insurrection. So, the authors of that amendment left it up to the states and ultimately the attorneys general to make the call.

The problem is two-fold. First, what mechanism does that person use to determine whether someone can legally seek the office? Donald Trump has not been charged with insurrection and was officially found not guilty by the Senate. So, how does one reach that determination? Forget the fact that we all watched it unfold in front of our eyes on national television. Forget that the January 6th committee has already uncovered more than enough evidence to show that it happened and that he spearheaded it. Forget that the majority of the 91 counts that he has been charged with in three of the four jurisdictions are directly or indirectly related to it. Is there actual proof in a court of law? If not, who decides on the facts and what they mean?

While what Missouri (or one man in Missouri) is proposing is preposterous, it does highlight a problem. It is a human one. You can write all the laws you want and you can write them as carefully and clearly as you like. It still relies on someone or a group executing that law.

This fundamental failure is on two groups of people. The first guilty party is the Republican party. They could have stopped this nonsense at any point. They could have done it in 2015 when he decided to run. They could have done it any number of moments during his reign of terror. They could have done it immediately after he left office at the second impeachment trial. They could have simply said you aren’t running anymore. They could do it now. I’m not sure what the Democratic party would do under the same circumstances. I really can’t say because there has never been a Donald Trump before. It is a uniquely Republican problem at this point in history. The Democrats have tried to bail them out in multiple instances and they refuse to take the lifeline.

The second group of people are the voters themselves. This isn’t about liberal or conservative anymore. Values are values after all and he is a man that has none. I remember talking to a former colleague (that I have snoozed on Facebook) that argued that he was a honorable man with a ton of positive qualities. I dared him to name one. He couldn’t. He couldn’t because you can’t. It was never about him or the positive qualities he supposedly possesses.

The Supreme Court will likely strike down Colorado’s decision. They will do it for craven and political reasons, but they will also have legal and ethical ones. In a democracy can we allow one person to determine someone’s fitness for office? Wouldn’t that be antithetical to what we are at our core? I know people want to find some way to save us from ourselves. I get that completely. Unfortunately, there is no easy way out. We will have to vanquish this pit stain of a human being the old-fashioned way. The GOP certainly isn’t going to do it. Our courts might catch up to him one day, but ultimately it will have to be us. Buckle up folks. It will be a bumpy ride.

We went on a family vacation to San Francisco. It used to be that you could go away and leave your troubles behind. With connectivity, all of our troubles seem to follow us everywhere. In the span of a week we saw two landmark Supreme Court cases hit the news.

Everything old is new again. It would be wrong for me to suggest the court is reaching new ground here. In a way it is, but for the most part we have been here before. Brown vs. Board of Education created new law back in 1954. It also likely went against what the majority of the population felt at the time. We had no public opinion polling back then, so that is merely a guess, but I feel like it is a good guess.

The court is there to interpret the constitution and not to bend to the whims of a fickle majority. I think we can agree with that much. However, it is fair to question whether following legal precedent matters and conservatives have long maintained a disdain for activist judges. The court (by vote of 6-3 both times) just actively created new law on both counts. They created two radically different interpretations of the constitution on both counts.

There is also no denying what they are after. Clarence Thomas mentioned gay marriage in his majority opinion and we know our very own John Cornyn mentioned Brown vs. Board of Education. It doesn’t take much of a stretch to include interracial marriages as well. We are literally going back a century on human rights.

In an odd way, the backdrop of San Francisco is kind of telling here. You have never seen a town more into Pride Month than San Francisco. You couldn’t swing a dead cat without hitting a pride flag. Stores had pride messages painted on their windows. Different companies offered pride products. It was the most inclusive, welcoming environment I had ever seen. How does all of this happen in the same country?

It happens because a minority of citizens have managed to control government and the courts. The GOP has effectively won a majority in a presidential election once since 1988. Many of their politicians have suggested that we live in a center-right country right now. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that based on national voting records or public opinion polling. None.

What there is evidence of is plenty of gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics that have kept progressivism at bay. This is where things get dicey. It is fair for people to look at Democrats in general and liberals and progressives specifically and claim they have failed. They didn’t codify abortion into law. They have been ineffective at stopping gerrymandering and have allowed the courts to be dominated by conservatives. There is no denying that.

The question is what happens now. We can go down two roads. One road would be for enough voters to punish Democrats either by staying home or voting for third party candidates. That way, you’d insure a Republican victory. The second road is to recognize the threat and where it is coming from. There you would overwhelm the GOP with a blue wave and then slowly rebuild what they have broken.

There are some that think the first road is tempting. After all, maybe if things get really bad then systemic change will be easier to obtain. That thinking has two problems. First, you are hurting millions along the way and secondly you are assuming there will be a democracy left to get back. Clearly, the GOP doesn’t care what the majority wants. They never have. Your only real bet is to block them from tearing this thing down any further.

We have to start with the basic facts. Most of the major news sources are reporting that the Supreme Court has secretly voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. Obviously, the way case law works is a little complicated. You can’t just wave a magic wand and erase fifty years of precedent. You have to have a case that allows you to render such a decision. The court has done it before. Brown vs. Board of Education reversed Plessy vs. Ferguson.

If we take enough steps back we can even look on with interest. It should be noted that reversing Roe v. Wade doesn’t make abortion illegal necessarily. Essentially it kicks the matter back to the states. Each individual state can choose for itself whether a woman has a right to choose. I imagine the blue states will continue to allow abortions as they have while the red states will immediately put the kibosh on that.

Public opinion is a fickle thing and I’m not sure that the constitution should be interpreted with public opinion in mind. However, it should be noted that more people are in favor of the pro choice view point than those that are pro life. Right around the time of the 2008 election the two positions were nearly even. Since then the tide has slowly turned towards pro choice with 59 percent currently believing that abortion should be legal in most if not all cases.

Without getting into the religious ramifications of any decision, I find the decision itself to be a fascinating microcosm of what is currently going on in the country. We are seeing a growing gap in the numbers of people that support progressive ideas and progressive causes while seeing an increase in conservative ideas and conservative causes. For the life of me I’ve never figured out exactly what to call this gap, but it is significant and it is growing.

Part of the problem is that some Americans have failed to put A and B together. If you want A and A does not happen then it pays to be able to identify who is keeping A from happening. Instead, a large enough percentage get angry at election time and vote for the very people that are stopping progress because the party working for progress hasn’t delivered.

The other part of the problem is that the opposition is good at silencing the will of the people through gerrymandering, voter suppression, and filibustering bills to death. Combine those two elements and you get what we currently got. Meanwhile we brace for the rights of women to roll back five decades as if we were in some sort of perverse DeLorean.

Interestingly enough, even the president of the United States isn’t immune from the discussion of identity politics and racism. It seems that he is even leaning into it by pledging that the next Supreme Court justice will be a black woman. As the link points out and as everyone kind of knew going in, there was much protesting. Some people have called it reverse discrimination. Then again, it is not completely out of the realm of possibility for conservatives to also play identity politics. Amy Coney Barrett replaced Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Clarence Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall. I’m sure those were just coincidences.

What exactly is systemic racism and what can we do to combat it? When institutions and companies make extra efforts to be diverse are they in fact participating in reverse discrimination? These are excellent questions and questions we don’t have easy answers for.

Unless there is a compelling reason, each institution, company, or organization should reflect the overall demographic breakdown of the community it is in. There are notable exceptions where we look foolish for arguing otherwise. Hooters is not going to hire male wait staff. The vast majority of teachers, garbage collectors, and soldiers will be skewed to one gender or another. The vast majority of professional and amateur athletes won’t be a representative sample either.

So, do we make specific efforts to be inclusive when those efforts might stack the deck for a particular position? That of course depends on the specific reason why someone like Biden might be restricting his search. The law impacts different groups in different ways. The court currently has three women on it. It has one African American. Adding an African American woman adds both of those perspectives.

When we measure the presence of racism based on the measurement of the outcome we often paint with a very broad brush. Yesterday, I mentioned the NFL. Jack Easterby was hired by the Texans in 2019 as an executive vice president. Without going into specifics on him we could simply say that it was a position he had never held before.

So, how in the blazes did he get such a position? Obviously, he knew some people and one thing led to another. That’s usually how these things work. The trouble is that when the vast majority of owners and executives are white then the “he knew someone” usually translates into hiring of another white guy. People hire people they are comfortable with or already know. It doesn’t make them a racist per se, but the outcome is a negative one for people of color.

Easterby got his start as a character coach of sorts. A character coach should be adept at relating to players and other employees. They should be comfortable with him. If a majority of the players are African American then wouldn’t it make more sense to have a character coach that is African American? Of course, they hired someone else to be a character coach when Easterby was promoted. He is someone Easterby knew and of course he is also white.

I don’t have any easy answers. This isn’t to say that men can’t relate to women or vice versa. This isn’t to say that people of color can’t relate to white people or vice versa. This isn’t to say that someone that came from money can’t relate to someone that didn’t or vice versa. If relating to special populations is a considerable part of the job then whether or not someone can represent that special population has to be a serious consideration. If we continue go with the “guy we know” then that isn’t likely to happen.