(because I have tried, and I just can’t)

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?

In a global sense, the hardest part of human existence is finding the balance between yearning for more and accepting what we have. People who simply settle are considered lazy or unambitious. People who constantly yearn for more are considered selfish or too ambitious. Somewhere in the space between there is a place where we should reside.

Donald Trump is never going to jail. Yes, he has 91 charges. Yes, he has committed any number of unspeakable crimes and there is probably another 100 he hasn’t been charged with and we can’t prove. Ken Paxton is never going to jail. Yes, he has been charged with crimes in federal court, but that was nearly a decade ago. The wheels of justice just roll differently for some people. Or don’t.

The Supreme Court recently decided to hear oral arguments on the claim that Donald Trump had absolute immunity to do whatever the hell he wanted as president of the United States. That doesn’t mean they agree mind you. I can’t think of any legal or historical justification for it, but I am only a mere political science major. I’m sure more learned legal and constitutional scholars could weigh in, but the notion that a president can be above the law is ludicrous on its face.

The Trump phenomenon is both fascinating from an academic sense and infuriating from a real life sense. Trump has managed to tap into everyone’s hate, fear, and insecurities all the while being the embodiment of that hate, fear, and insecurity. We have a two-tiered justice system. Everyone knows it and everyone feels frustration by it. How else could we explain someone getting charged 91 times and not going to trial for any of it? Yet, he is allowed to prattle on about it in his speeches and somehow the MAGAs see him as their warrior against it and not the ultimate recipient of it. It’s both fascinating and infuriating at the same time.

If this is normal then we have some serious problems. The truth of the matter is that it hasn’t been normal up until this point. Even if we take the Supreme Court and all of the lower courts at their word, they are treating this like it was business as usual. Yes, under normal circumstances we would want to delay criminal proceedings when those proceedings are political in nature. The trouble is that Trump presents a clear and present danger to the welfare of the United States. He clearly ran for president to avoid legal responsibility. It’s transparent. It’s disgusting. It’s incredibly demoralizing to watch it actually work.

Someone smarter than me once said that the universe bends towards justice. I can’t debate that eternal wisdom, but I doubt it every single day. I have no doubt that Trump will someday pay the piper, but it will likely happen in the history books. His children will be left with the bill. I’m sure there is some culpability there, but you have to wonder if that’s justice at all. I suppose in some sense it is and I suppose it is the best we can possibly do. Somewhere between the world we have and the world we want is a world we can strive for. Maybe someday that second tier of people that evade justice can finally reap what they sow. At least we can hope.

We all know there is a shortage of teachers, counselors, and administrators in the state of Texas. They have found a solution to the second group. They are allowing school districts to hire chaplains as school counselors. Since I have a masters in school counseling and have worked as a counselor for three of my 26 years, I thought I would walk us through this.

My masters program was 51 credit hours. That’s a long damn time. Most programs today are as little as 36 hours. Since most counseling students are current teachers, those programs usually limit you to six hours per semester. If you hoof it and press through the summers, you can complete the program in two calendar years.

Of course, back in the good ole’ days they didn’t put us in cohorts and streamline the process. Those 51 hours ended up taking me nearly five years. From there, I had to pass a certification exam and demonstrate that I had taught in the classroom for at least two years.

Counselors do so much more than just counsel students. They are responsible for the master schedule, they provide academic counseling to help students select classes, and help students apply for colleges, get scholarships and grants, and complete the financial aid form. Yes, they also counsel students and have to do so for students from all religious, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds.

In addition to working as a teacher during the day, I am also a catechist at night and on weekends. That just means that I assist the youth minister with the confirmation program. In order to be qualified to do that, I have to complete a Safe Environment course every five years. They also do a criminal background check. That’s it. Otherwise, I just raised my hand and volunteered.

Obviously, my experience as a teacher and counselor comes in handy. I am able to assist with lesson planning and working with students with special needs. I certainly wasn’t trained at the church for that and I end up actually doing the training in an unofficial capacity.  One can certainly appreciate that anyone can become a chaplain through the simple process of completing an internet course. I would have to imagine that online courses from major religious groups aren’t far behind.

Meanwhile, no one has bothered to ask why there is a shortage in the first place. Counselor pay is unpredictable and woefully inadequate in many places. One friend I know took a pay cut to get a counseling position in another district. I am too close to the end to take a pay cut. Even a transfer for similar pay makes little sense. I’ve done this before. There is more stress, longer hours, and the stakes are higher. Why would I do that for the same money?

People like me bide our time and wait for the right opportunity to present itself. The difficulty with chaplains is that they don’t have this training or experience. They are short-circuiting the process and bypassing many of the steps that makes counselors good at what they do. Being a teacher made me a better counselor. I knew what teachers and students were going through.

One of the courses I took was called religious counseling. It essentially taught us the basics so that we would have a basic understanding of every major religion we might encounter. Are chaplains doing this? Are they doing any of it? As the law is written now, they won’t have to. They just has to produce a certificate that says they are a chaplain. Well, I guess I could do that. I’ve done that too for over 20 years.

How many times have California Republicans tried to recall California Governor Gavin Newsom? Five? Then, six times must be the charm, or so must think the organizers of the latest effort to recall this popular governor.

The last time this happened, the recall effort made it to a special election. In an off year. In 2021. During a global pandemic.

By law, a recall effort is allowed 160 days to gather signatures on their petition after giving notification. In 2021, a judge allowed Republicans an additional 4 months to complete their task because not enough people were going shopping at big box stores where petition gatherers are usually encountered.

Because of COVID.

And COVID was ironically the main issue behind the recall. Newsom was first to lock down his state to avoid filling hospital ICUs with afflicted patients. He was quite good at that. He was, however, remiss in masking up at a widely reported dinner party in an exclusive French restaurant amid the lockdown. Hence, their moral outrage.

So it was paradoxical that the very beef they had with Newsom, COVID, allowed Republicans enough time to gather the required number of valid signatures to hold a special election after four previous tries.

This Politico article spells it all out, but there is a flaw in their reportage. Politico assumes that the recall is meant to take place in the November election.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

See, Californians like Newsom for the most part. They also like their Cannabis. At the time, it was no coincidence that Cannabis legalization proponents managed to schedule a vote to legalize recreational marijuana during the 2016 Presidential General election, which produced the 3rd highest voter turnout by percent since 1976.

The Cannabis legalization issue passed.

The last recall of Newsom was a special election on the recall alone. Special elections are notoriously low turnout ones here. Lower than midterm election turnouts. Not so in 2021. Despite the pandemic, that special election had a 58% participation; a full 8% higher than the 2022 midterm election.

Just imagine the turnout if Newsom’s recall were to occur as an issue on the same ballot that TFG appears on as a Presidential candidate.

In California.

It is safe to predict that 2024 would be a Republican rout up and down the ballot.

So no. Newsom’s recall is doomed if it is on the 2024 General Election, and Republicans know it.

On the other hand, Republicans know that 2028 will be Newsom’s first year to attempt a presidential run. Getting him recalled in a low-turnout special election in 2025 would be the obvious gambit to damage his image. Chris Christie had his George Washington Bridge affair to end his winning streak. They hope that this will end Newsom’s.

Their issue last time was flouting his own mask mandate in a restaurant. This time, it is the current state budget shortfall. My guess is that they missed on both issues.

Next time, they might consider trying to impeach President Newsom for using excess hair product.