Last week the Court, as expected, overturned Roe v. Wade. Reactions are, as expected, mixed. The “pro-life” and “pro-choice” arguments of the last 50 years resurface as women, states, churches, and others scramble to pronounce their points of view. The decision is likely to play a significant role in the 2022 and 2024 elections. 

Much has been written about Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the decision overturning Roe. Technically, the decision does not ban abortion. Instead, it rescinds the right to an abortion and sends the regulation of abortion to the states. Because at least 22 states already have banned or severely restricted abortions, the decision effectively bans abortions for millions of women. Thousands of women will be forced to birth babies they had determined they did not want or were unable to care for.

While many have focused on the legal arguments of Dobbs, I reflect more on the logical inconsistencies reflected in a court that has effectively banned abortion but still allows the death penalty. Similarly, the decision will result in thousands of babies being born that may lead lives of misery not just because their mothers were unprepared to raise them (or didn’t want to), but because of poverty. 

The Declaration of Independence references the “unalienable rights” of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Many babies born because of Dobbs may not have much of a life, may have extremely limited liberty, and may be denied the pursuit of happiness. Of course, many such babies may lead happy, healthy, productive lives despite being “unwanted children.”

Some babies born as a result of Dobbs may eventually commit capital crimes and be put to death by the government. Ironically, some of the younger justices on the Court, including the Trump Trio of Gorsuch (54 years old), Kavanaugh (57 years old), and Barrett, (50 years old), may still be on the Court when appeals of death sentences of some of the babies (now adults) will reach the Supreme Court. Ironically, the same justices who effectively forced their mothers to unwillingly give them birth will vote to let them be executed. 

Another deeply troubling aspect of the decision is the matter of effectively forcing the birth of human beings and then not caring for them. If you adopt a dog and then abuse it by not feeding it, giving it proper shelter, or otherwise treating it in a humane manner, you can be prosecuted. The concept is that when you adopt a dog, you accept a slate of responsibilities. In the case of an unwanted child, a child born because a woman was unable to get an abortion after concluding she did not want or was unable to care for the child, the state (the government) is responsible for the child being born. Shouldn’t the state be responsible for ensuring the child receives proper healthcare, an education, and the right to “pursue happiness?”

I am angry at Republicans and religious zealots who champion the “right to life” but oppose universal healthcare, spending on education, job, and income security, and other “basic human rights.” Those people championing the “sanctity of life,” are hypocrites, in my view, when they force babies to be born without also championing the “right to live.” 

Child poverty in the U.S. is a disgrace. Eighteen percent of all children live in poverty—thirteen million children. The Supreme Court’s decision, coupled with the hypocrisy of the Court and others in not somehow ensuring that the babies forced to be born are not doomed to join the thirteen million, is effectively denying the “right to live” for many of these babies. 

A final reflection on the decision is that it suggests the Supreme Court and other aspects of the Constitution may be broken or obsolete. The Court returned the decision on whether to permit abortions to the States based on a controversial reading of the Constitution and its amendments. That result is contrary to the wishes of 65 percent of the population.  Is it too much to suggest Dobbs is evidence of Constitutional dysfunction?

The disconnect between the current Supreme Court and the wishes of much of the country suggests that it may be time to rethink the role of the Supreme Court and other aspects of the Constitution. Should Justices be subject to term limits? Should the process of amending the Constitution be made simpler to facilitate the adoption of amendments to establish rights such as same-sex and interracial marriage, or the right to contraception and abortion? These are tough questions, but they are becoming increasingly “ripe for consideration.”

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.

 

Democracy is an obstacle to an agenda based on fear.

For the last few years, I have worried that progressives were losing faith in the Constitution. My fear was that dysfunction in Washington would convince progressives that the system of government created by the Constitution no longer worked. I worried that a critical mass of progressives would abandon attempting to win elections and collaborating with moderates and conservatives to enact legislation and take to the streets.

Progressives may yet lose faith in the Constitution but, for now, remain a solid force within the Democratic party. Despite the slow wheels of government resulting from the Constitution’s checks and balances, progressives are not yet ready to storm the Capitol and hang Mitch McConnell.

The right wing, by contrast, has already left the Constitution behind. Led by Donald Trump and other “new Republicans,” extreme conservatives have sought to achieve their agendas through the courts rather than legislation, by executive action by-passing Congress, and, in January 2021, by violence and terrorism. 

The right wing has lost faith in democracy. Their actions reflect a belief that, if democracy works, they lose. Because most Americans support reasonable immigration policies, racial justice, and equity, fighting climate change, the right to abortion, and separation of church and state, a functioning democracy is an obstacle to the right-wing agenda. 

The January 6 assault on the Capitol may prove to be but the first battle of a war against the Constitution. Led by a President whose career in real estate development was built on circumventing laws and regulations, Trump’s followers sought to block Congress from certifying the 2020 election. The goal was to keep Trump in office despite his electoral loss. Supporters of the coup attempt, then and now, are fine with having a president who was not elected by the people.

The story of Trump is a troubling one, replete with a history of racism, petty and grand theft, and a propensity to lie in the face of overwhelming evidence. Trump, we are learning from the House Select Committee on January 6, knew that he had lost the election but championed half-baked legal analyses and false claims (most created by his followers) to claim the election was stolen.

It may seem obvious that Trump’s claims would disintegrate as courts rejected his false claims, but Trump’s strategy continues to be to double-down on lying while at the same time attempting to set the stage to overturn future elections that he, his followers, or his ideological successor might lose. 

Trump, by sheer force of his willingness to argue the ridiculous, has made himself indispensable to a movement that is sufficiently out of sync with mainstream America to never win national power. That is why his followers tolerate him despite evidence of tax fraud, sexual assault, and petty grift. 

Trump’s followers, both those who marched on the Capitol and those who continue to dismiss the seriousness of the insurrection attempt, are not so much supporting Trump as attempting to fight democracy. Trump should thus be seen as a means to an end rather than as the end itself. Right-wing extremists want a leader who will deliver policies that correspond to what they think they believe. This means preventing immigration, freezing racial equity, preventing racial reconciliation, and limiting government. By dismantling “the deep state,” the right-wing sees the possibility of their policy agenda winning notwithstanding the wishes of most Americans as expressed through their representatives and President sent to Washington.

If the theory that the right-wing has abandoned democracy is correct, we are in deep trouble. If the right-wing does not regain power by election, it could turn to more serious strategies, which could include bombings, kidnappings, and murders. Efforts could also be made to intimidate moderates and liberals from voting. In short, domestic terrorism. Far-fetched? Read up on what the Proud Boys were up to on January 6. 

The fear that right-wingers will turn to enhanced violence is not speculation. They have already done it. A plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Whitmore was foiled, but only after elaborate plans were developed. Pre-meditated attacks on gay-pride events have occurred. And, of course, racially motivated mass shootings have become common.

Does the right want a dictator?

The indifference with which right-wingers have responded to the deadly January 6 insurrection suggests the right is ready to embrace an autocrat, or benevolent dictator (benevolent to the right-wing at the expense of others). Trump was delivering what the right-wing thinks it wants–people of color “put back in their place,” LGBQT people put back in the closet, and a government that operates to perpetuate the status quo. If urban schools do not improve, for example, black progress does not occur. If income security and protection of civil rights are low priorities, the U.S. becomes a less attractive destination for immigrants. The list goes on.

Do not expect right-wingers to call for a dismantling of our system of government openly. Instead, listen to their chants of “USA! USA!” and then listen to what the crowd is cheering. In the case of Trump, it often calls for building border fences, incarcerating Hillary Clinton, or cracking down on crime. Extremists say they want to make America great again. Nothing could be further from the truth.

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.

 

For just a minute, let’s be honest. We still don’t know yet whether the first hearing of the House January 6 Committee changed anyone’s mind about Trump’s complicity. Judging from both news analyses and conversations with friends from both parties, the hearing was widely watched and substantive, but is that enough? 

Speculation since Thursday’s hearing has turned to whether we already have seen the much-ballyhooed “bombshells” teased by Congressman Raskin (D-MD), Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) and others. If we have, we need to be worried. It will take more than former Attorney General Barr calling Trump’s claims of election fraud “bullsh*t,” or even Ivanka Trump admitting that she accepted Barr’s conclusion, to change minds that seem impervious to the reality that Trump schemed to hold onto power in 2021 by any means possible.

Is the January 6 committee about to fail? I hope not, but if something doesn’t happen, Trump and Trumpism (the latter more dangerous than the former) will soldier on, poisoning the 2022 midterm elections and setting the stage for worse in 2024. “Worse” means an end to representational democracy as we currently know it. 

What signs of success should we look for? First, we need to see Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Republican Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA), and swaggering right-wingers like Josh Hawley (R-MO) start to see more risk in defending Trump than in ignoring or condemning him. That transition already has taken place with Mike Pence and, to a lesser degree, Mitch McConnell. Even Mo Brooks (R-AL), a featured speaker at the infamous Save America rally on the morning of January 6 has spoken out, suggesting it is time to move on. (That so-called courageous statement cost Brooks Trump’s endorsement for a Senate seat. Trump called him “woke,” which means “dead to me” in Trump’s mind.) 

Second, we need to see Trump shut up. While most people who face criminal charges for tax and business fraud in New York, and for interfering with the election would follow the advice of counsel and stop talking, Trump has done the opposite. In doing so, he produced the strongest evidence yet of his mental illness and that nothing the January 6 committee proves will get him to back off his crusade to end democracy in America. Trump’s statement was to call the deadly January 6 insurrection “the greatest movement in the history of our country.”

Third, we need to see signs of life at the U.S. Department of Justice. Why hasn’t the attorney general indicted Trump yet for sedition? Legal scholars believe there is enough evidence to indict Trump now. Why hasn’t Merrick Garland acted? Are the indictments being held back so as not to energize Trump voters in the 2020 mid-term elections? I do not know but suspect that is part of what is going on at Justice.

Fourth, we need to see Trump candidates defeated in elections. Encouragingly, a few hand-picked Trump candidates have flopped. Former Senator David Perdue’s effort to win the Republican nomination for governor of Georgia over incumbent Brian Kemp comes to mind. But for every Perdue, we have a J.D. Vance, Dr. Oz, or a Hershel Walker. The election of any of this trio is unwelcome news for democracy and the Senate.

Assuming the Committee fails, meaning that the Trump base shrugs off the reality of an attempted coup, there is real reason to fear for the future of the Constitution. We will either have a civil war, started by states that will decline to remain part of a country that has abandoned free and open elections and that embraces white supremacy, or something worse. That “worse” could include wholesale expulsion of undocumented people from the U.S., warfare with Mexico, alliances with autocratic countries like Russia, Turkey, Hungry and Saudi Arabia.

That is why we need to hope that the January 6 committee, or, better stated, common sense, prevails. The insanity of Trump and the Pandora’s box of dysfunction he has set loose needs to end. America must come back together again. America’s current problems will not be solved without unity.

And lest anyone even think of responding to this piece by reminding me of how bad Joe Biden is, let me preempt you. Joe Biden had nothing to do with the January 6 insurrection. Criticize him for what he has done or not done as president, but do not tell me we would be better off with Donald J. Trump back in the White House.

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.

 

Last Friday, I went into town for gas. I saw a sticker depicting President Joe Biden pointing to the spot where the price per gallon is displayed. Biden is saying “I did that!” A recent  ABC/Ipsos poll suggests that most Americans agree. According to the poll, Biden currently has a 27 percent approval rating on how he is dealing with gas prices. His score for handing inflation is as bad at 28 percent. 

Let’s be honest. It is unfair to put the blame for high gasoline prices solely on Joe Biden and the Democrats. There’s plenty of blame to go around, including Russia, greedy oil company executives, Donald Trump, Congress, and the pandemic. And if we want to play the blame game, we need to add ourselves to the list. If we bought less gasoline, the price would go down.

For many of us, gasoline is the most irritating manifestation of inflation, but it is only part of a pattern of rising prices. Long-term inflation, leading to a recession, seems likely. Simply put, indications are increasing that trouble is heading our way.

Consider a few recent comments by business and government leaders. Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase predicts an “economic hurricane.” Elon Musk predicts a recession and tells us, in true Musk fashion, that it will be a good thing. “Bankruptcies need to happen,” he tells us, which is easy for him to say.  

More worrisome is Treasury Secretary Yellen admitting that she was wrong in her projections about inflation.  Yellen believed inflation would be modest.  Reports suggest that she advised President Biden to pare down his domestic spending proposals but was overruled by other administration advisors. 

Worse yet, we have Fed Chairman Jay Powell and others at the Federal Reserve uncertain of how inflation can be brought under control. Powell predicts “pain” and says several factors that might trigger a recession are beyond the Fed’s control.  That is not comforting. 

All this suggests that we are on the cusp of a recession. I see one coming but, I am frequently surprised by encountering people who continue to believe that things will be back to normal by the end of the year. Among their explanations are that the supply chain issues are “straightening out;” that the Fed’s “quantitative tightening” will work; and that the war in Ukraine will end soon because “Putin is running out of tanks.”

When I hear this type of garbage, I smile, nod my head, and walk away knowing that I have just wasted my time. But when I reflect on all the explanations being offered for inflation, most of them in the form of blame, I realize that nobody has a handle on inflation. 

If the Biden administration, the Fed, or anyone else manages to tame inflation, a modicum of luck will be involved. This is not to say that there aren’t things that can and should be done now. The Federal Reserve is doing the right thing to implement quantitative tightening. Republicans are doing the right thing to oppose massive new federal spending. Economists are right to suggest that too many people continue to voluntarily remain unemployed or underemployed. 

Unfortunately, if new investments in infrastructure, education, healthcare, the military, and science are deferred, we all pay the price eventually. The pressing social needs that gave rise to last summer’s urban turmoil have not yet been met. More unrest is likely if it becomes clear that progress is being abandoned in the name of curing inflation.

What does all this mean for the 2022 midterm elections? Unfortunately, if the polls are right, people will blame Biden and Democrats for inflation and will punish them by voting for Republicans. That will further polarize politics, especially if people like Mehmet Oz, J.D. Vance, and Herschel Walker are sent to D.C.

I fear that if Republicans win in November, their focus will not be on taming inflation. It will be on impeaching Joe Biden, enacting tax cuts, and pursuing nonsense like “banning” Critical Race Theory and blocking needed election reform laws to increase their odds of winning the presidency in 2024. 

This means that in addition to the obvious pain of inflation, we may face other types of pain as the polarization of America continues. All this means it is important to avoid the blame game when talking about inflation. Instead of finding someone to blame, let’s work together to find impactful solutions.

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.

 

More than half of us want to see action on gun control, but nobody I know expects Congress to pass a law. It cannot. With few exceptions, Congress is devoid of leaders. Most members on both sides plan their every move with the next election in mind. And they do not have the time to develop legislation because they are too busy fundraising, posting on social media, or trying to get on Fox or MSNBC. It is sad, but that’s only part of the story.

Somehow the quality of people serving in Congress is declining. Missouri once sent Stuart Symington to the Senate. Today fist-pumping Josh Hawley represents it. At least two members of the House of Representatives are openly anti semitic, Representatives Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Omar Ilhan (D-MN). Tlaib accused Jews serving in Congress of dual loyalty, suggesting they may be more loyal to Israel than to the United States. “They forget who they represent,” she said. 

Omar Ilhan is also accused of antisemitism, but is also known for selling t-shirts reading, “F**k around and find out” on her campaign website. Ilhan is not known for her legislative leadership or her ability to collaborate with Republicans.

On the Republican side, more than a dozen members regularly contribute to the destruction of the credibility, and to the worsening dysfunction, of Congress. The list includes gun fanatic Lauren Boebert (R-CO), QAnon follower Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), and, of course, Matt Gaetz (R-FL), who has been accused of sex trafficking. Other Republicans are accused of complicity in the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol.

Misbehaving members of Congress are nothing new. Memories of Wayne Hays (D-OH) affair with employee Elizabeth Ray come to mind. Jim Traficant (D-OH) was expelled from the House and served seven years in prison for taking bribes, racketeering, and having staff members perform chores on his farm. Remember Wilber Mills (D-AR) and the “Argentine Firecracker,” Fanne Foxe?

There will be future episodes of bad judgment, alcohol abuse, and plain stupidity involving congresspersons and senators. Those episodes, too, will injure the credibility of Congress. But today we see something worse. We see members of Congress openly disobeying the rules Congress sets for itself. Consider the case of House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). As widely expected, he has effectively announced he won’t comply with the subpoena he received from the House Select Committee on the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol.  Other subpoenaed Republicans are expected to follow suit. Their plan:  Attack the legitimacy of the Committee, make unrealistic demands in exchange for testifying, and run out the clock until Congress adjourns for the year.

McCarthy and the Republicans actions seriously injure Congress for multiple reasons. Among them are openly violating the legitimate request of a duly created committee and seeking to subvert the work of Congress in investigating the most serious threat to democracy in recent times. An extremely dangerous precedent is being established that may please Donald Trump in the short term but will lead to favors being returned in future Congresses.

In eight months, Congress may very well be in Republican control. Mr. McCarthy is expected by many to be elected Speaker. Will he, as members of the Freedom Caucus and Donald Trump have suggested, proceed to impeach President Biden?  Unfortunately, the odds are better than 50-50. 

Members of Congress of both parties have become increasingly comfortable with open political warfare. Efforts to find common ground are now uncommon. Political fights are not resolved in Congress but fought out in the media. Lying has now become the norm. Members caught in lies no longer fear accountability. You get the idea.

I wonder if all is not lost—if Congress and representational democracy is not living on borrowed time. If it is, get ready for more Donald Trumps and worse (yes, that is possible). The only thing that can save democracy is for the people to start exercising it. That means people following Congress and government closer and holding those who undermine democracy accountable. That means voting members of Congress and senators who are not civil, do not focus on the common good, and who otherwise violate common decency out. 

The American people rid itself of Donald Trump in the 2020 election. Today 76 percent of Americans disapprove of how Congress is doing its job. Congress needs to reform itself or get ready to go out of business. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.

 

I am still reeling from too many hours of news coverage of the mass shooting in Buffalo. Ten people murdered for being Black. A white racist, “radicalized” via the internet, conducted reconnaissance trips and selected a target two hundred miles from home. The shooter may be mentally ill but was functional enough to successfully execute a dramatic act of racist terror. He was also ready to die for the cause of reducing the number of Black people.

What are we to make of this and similar incidents of pure hate? More importantly, can we claim to understand what happened and why? 

I worry that we are somehow doing something to contribute to the growth of hate and the willingness of some of us, all too often younger White males, to embark on suicidal missions of death intended to somehow stop people of color from taking over the America. Or, better stated, is there something we are not doing that we should be? 

One explanation of the Buffalo and similar eruptions of hate is that they are an inherent side-effect of efforts to create a more equitable society. Achieving racial equity and justice means that those subject to past and current disadvantage based on race will get some, and ideally all, of the benefits of removal of those disadvantages. This means that people of color will enjoy a greater share of the national pool of economic and social equity. It also means that Whites will enjoy less. Whites will have less of that equity because it will not have that portion of the equity that reflected White privilege.

The change in both opportunity and economic achievement that is inherent in a more just society is difficult for many Whites to accept. As the Biden administration appoints people of color to top posts in government, for example, some Whites feel resentment and assume the appointees did not merit their jobs. Some of us also balk at seeing people of color serving as judges, corporate executives, doctors, and any other job not involving manual labor or sports. At the heart of this assumption is that most people of color remain “intellectually inferior” to most White people. 

The movement towards a more just and equitable society is prompting some White people to vent anger at what they see as “their country” being “given away.” Racism and hate have come out of the closet to degree not seen since the 1960s. In the 1960s there were race-motivated murders and terrorism, but not the mass shootings that we see today, or so it seems. 

Why have racists become more comfortable sharing their hatred? One explanation is that racism is more acceptable and public today than in the recent past. Racism today frequently does not result in accountability or punishment, encouraging more racism. And because some of the racists are government officials—like Donald Trump who infamously suggested that Mexicans were rapists and drug-dealers—some racists take pride in “telling it like it is.”  Also, unlike in past eras, racists’ beliefs are often “confirmed” by being discussed on cable and other news media outlets. Fox News personalities come to mind-Please don’t call them journalists or any other title that implies they are anything other than propagandists for right-wing, often racist thinking.

Finding a solution to the problem—something to address the race-hate and terrorism—may be impossible, but we must try. The efforts must go beyond trying to identify troubled individuals that have already been “radicalized” or those who are already in the process of planning a mass murder. Instead, we need to try a couple of things. First, all of us need to accept that to achieve equal justice for all, economic inequality based on racism or the vestiges of racism needs to be addressed. This means understanding the history of both slavery and the virulent race-hate that followed it. Second, we need to make sure everyone understands that aggressive action to create racial equity is in everyone’s interest. 

If everyone understood that people of color are not “taking over America,” racists might calm down. Their racism is unlikely to disappear, but they will be less likely to feel personally threatened by seeing diversity in business and government. And if they came to embrace the concept that the elimination of inequality and inequity in society will make all of us safer and freer, the race-hate we see around us will start to dissipate.

How might America change the thinking of racists? For starters, purveyors of race-hate need to lose their platforms on the web. Just as the First Amendment doesn’t protect individuals who yell “fire” in a crowded theater, those that foment and encourage violence need to be silenced. The First Amendment is no more of a license to engage in terrorism than the Second Amendment is to shoot people at random.

Action is needed now. The best minds in the country need to be brought together to analyze the trend of increasing race-motivated violence, identify its causes, and recommend a series of actions to address it. Am I naïve to hope that Republicans might join Democrats in supporting this type of effort?

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.

 

You’ve heard it before. What is taking the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol so long to complete its investigation? I wonder about this and worry that Republicans might “run out the clock” before the Committee completes its work. 

For those who want the truth about what happened on January 6 and who was responsible, there is good news this week. The committee will start public hearings on June 9. That first hearing will trigger a series of hearings that will dive into what Trump knew about the insurrection—and whether he was its mastermind.

We already know that after inciting rally attendees outside the White House on the morning of January 6, Trump retired to the White House private dining room despite stating, “I’ll be with you.”  For the next several hours, Trump watched the rioters throw flag poles at police, smash doors and windows, and legislators flee for their lives. He watched as the vote count to certify the election of Joe Biden was disrupted. When asked to call the rioters off, he declined for several hours.

While watching the events on multiple TVs, Trump was also on the phone. He had several calls with House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, Jim Jordan, and others. What did they tell the President? What did he ask them to do?

Did Trump and others engage in a seditious conspiracy which is a felony? Many believe the answer is yes. To convict an individual of seditious conspiracy, the government must “prove that the defendant in fact conspired to use force.”  That is a heavy lift: “Simply advocating for the use of force is not the same thing [as just advocating the use of force] and in most cases is protected as free speech under the First Amendment.”

The January 6 committee (and the Department of Justice) already know Trump and his allies advocated the use of force. The investigation seeks to establish that the President’s actions went beyond talk. Who recruited the rioters and paid the expenses that made their deadly trip to Washington possible?

One reason the January 6 committee has taken so long to complete its investigation is that the Trump team has not only declined to cooperate with the investigation but appears to have attempted to hide evidence. Why was Trump using “burner phones” for his calls to Capitol Hill? 

If Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Chief-of-Staff Mark Meadows, and many others were complicit in planning the attempted coup, how likely is it that they attempted to hide their involvement? 

Fortunately for America, the committee did not abandon its efforts to conduct a comprehensive, thorough investigation after it met with uncooperative and, it appears, lying witnesses. After 10 months of work, it is ready to start publicly sharing its findings.

Here is what we are likely to learn this summer:

Trump approved the effort to disrupt the certification of the 2020 vote. It was one of several strategies, including dozens of unsuccessful lawsuits, intended to overturn election results. Disrupting the vote certification was a desperate, obviously illegal, action.

Several prominent Congressional Republicans knew the riot would take place and approved it. Remember Missouri Senator Josh Hawley fist-pumping rioters as they streamed towards the Capitol to smash windows and try to hang Mike Pence? The complicit legislators might include McCarthy, Jordan, Cruz, and Hawley, as well as a full clown-car carrying Lauren Boebert, Mo Brooks, Andy Biggs, and several other members of the Freedom Caucus.

Trump’s team was directly involved in raising funds to support the organization and training of members of groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers that were recruited to come to Washington. Fundraising helped pay their expenses while in Washington. The investigation will uncover not only who wrote checks, but also who requested them to write checks and what contact they had with Trump, Trump family members, and White House staff.

White House staff and others associated with Trump developed the strategy of how to retain the presidency and transmitted it to the insurrectionists. This means that White House officials wrote the January 6 “battle plan” and Trump approved it. 

A minute-by-minute account of what Trump did on January 6. The expected detailed description of a president watching TV in the hopes that the attack would be successful will further damage Trump’s already plummeting popularity. The disgusting disclosures of a president enjoying the events of January 6 might finally end his leadership of the Republican party.

If the January 6 committee hearings are as powerful as some predict, the dynamics of the 2022 mid-term elections and, more importantly, the 2024 presidential election, could change. Recall that after Nixon’s overwhelming win in the 1972 election, Democrats won in a landslide in the 1974 mid-term elections and regained the presidency in 1976.

The January 6 hearings may prompt Americans who are still confused about the attack on the Capitol to realize it was a violent attack on democracy conceived of and executed under the leadership of the former President. 

Stay tuned. It will be a bad summer for Republicans. But a good one for our Constitutional democracy.

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, nature, and other subjects.

Since the draft decision overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked to Politico, I have talked to a lot of people about it.  My pro-choice friends are as outraged as my pro-life friends are pleased. References to having “won” or “lost” are as common as disparaging comments about “the other side.”

One thing absent from the conversations is a detailed discussion of Justice Alito’s draft opinion. With very few exceptions, both sides ignore details. All that matters is the outcome.

Ignoring the legal arguments cited in support of the decision is unfortunate. Regardless of your position on abortion, it is important to acknowledge that the Court was doing what it is supposed to do—considering legal arguments related to the case before it and deciding the case based on its interpretation of the law and the Constitution.

 In the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Alito, apparently joined by four of his conservative colleagues, decided that the legal foundations for Roe v. Wade were wrongly reached in 1973 and should be overturned. Looking at the legal issues rather than whether we support abortion, is Justice Alito right?

The right to an abortion is not established in the Constitution in the same way as the right to bear arms, free speech, or freedom of religion. To establish the right to abortion, the Court in 1973 interpreted part of the Constitution, principally the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as creating a right that was not explicitly referenced. That right was the “Right to Privacy.” It is the basis for the right to abortion and serves as the foundation for several other rights, including interracial and same sex marriage.

The key finding in Roe is that:  “State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here [in effect in 1973], that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.”

The” bottom line” in Dobbs is not that the case bans abortion, it is that it returns the right to regulate the practice to the states. Abortion rights will remain in states, like Maryland, which have not enacted legislation restricting or banning abortion. The right will be restricted or eliminated in other states. Currently 23 states have such laws, including four that have passed a state constitutional amendment declaring that their constitution does not secure or protect the right to abortion. 

The draft opinion indicates that for a right to be found in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the rights had to have been largely established at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. In overturning Roe, Justice Alito found that the right to an abortion was not well-established in American law at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted,1868. He argues that because the right was not well-established in 1868, the right to an abortion cannot be read into the Constitution. 

If formally adopted by the Court, the decision in Dobbs will be difficult for a future Supreme Court to overturn. The opportunity for such a reconsideration may also not arise for several years given the current ideological makeup of the Court and the unlikelihood of a liberal majority in the next several years.

One way to expedite a reversal of the Dobbs decision would be for Congress to expand the size of the Supreme Court. That action, popularly referred to as “Court packing,” is unlikely given the party split in the House and Senate and the probability of a Republican majorities in both in 2023.

The other way to reverse Dobbs would be to pass a Constitutional amendment. That option is not being discussed at this point, given that approval requires the votes of three quarters (38) of the States. It is currently inconceivable that a pro-choice amendment will be approved in the next 10 years.

That leaves pro-choice advocates—supporters of women’s rights—one avenue to limit the impact of Dobbs. That avenue is changing state laws by electing executives and legislators supporting the right to abortion. 

The pro-choice v. pro-life fight is one that will be fought in the states. Proponents on both sides are well-advised to read the Dobbs opinion and shift the focus of their advocacy to states rather than the federal government. Absent the restoration of a federal right to an abortion, the issue is one that the states will control. 

Unless the role of the Supreme Court is changed from that of an interpreter of laws to some sort of super-legislature, the law and Constitution, as interpreted by the Court, will control the right to abortion. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, nature, and other subjects.

 

Remember the climate crisis? In October 2020, just before winning the presidency, Joe Biden discussed climate change with former Obama advisor Dan Pfeiffer.  Biden told Pfeiffer, “It is the number one issue facing humanity.” Biden went on to say, “Climate change is the existential threat to humanity. It is going to bake this planet. This is not hyperbole. It is real. And we have a moral obligation.”

Since his election, Biden has regularly proposed increased spending to address climate change.  He even appointed Former Secretary of State John Kerry to serve as  U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate.  But his leadership on the issue can be questioned. Listening to him today one wonders whether he still sees climate change as “the number one issue facing humanity.”

Why isn’t Biden talking more about this issue? The problem: It has been eclipsed by other issues. Topping the list are the war in Ukraine and inflation. We all worry about these two issues. Unfortunately, many other issues are of greater concern. These issues are tied to individuals’ party identification. 

Republicans will point to crime in the cities, border security, a host of “culture issues,” including Critical Race Theory, LGBQT rights, elections, and, of course, Biden himself. Democrats point to Trump and his continued assault on democracy, healthcare, affordable housing, student debt, income inequality, and social justice.

Where’s climate change? A friend of mine put it this way, “An immediate crisis always trumps a long-range one.”

Climate change is not a long-range problem. It is also unfair, especially to Democrats, to suggest it is not a party priority. President Biden proposes spending $45 billion on climate change in his fiscal year 2023 budget. Republicans, at least the minority no longer denying climate change, acknowledge the issue, but are silent on it. I cannot remember a Republican speaking out on the issue in the last year, can you?

Because Democrats control the House and Senate, chances are good that most or all the $45 billion requested for climate change will be funded this year. But is that amount commensurate with the gravity of the problem? And what happens next year? If, as widely predicted, Republicans win control of the House of Representatives and Senate, or even just one chamber of Congress, budget priorities will shift. It may not matter what President Biden proposes on climate change. That is a reason to worry.

President Biden and other Democrats know they have both a 2022 and 2024 problem. That is one reason they are not talking about climate change. The voters they need to appeal to are worried about other things. And with inflation raging, members of both parties are increasingly reluctant to engage in more massive federal spending. Things such as military and humanitarian support for Ukraine are likely to add up to more than $80 billion this year if Biden’s current request for another $33 billion is followed by additional requests as the war continues. 

That also brings us to the 2022 elections and, logically, 2024. Biden and his party are not ready to concede the 2022 elections. That means addressing the priorities of the party’s progressive wing. To win in November, Democrats must deliver on things like affordable housing, expanded healthcare, and student loans. All those priorities, regardless of their merit, decrease the chances of adequate funding for climate change.

Obviously, progressives consider climate change a priority, but it is one of several. If Biden were to make addressing climate change his top priority, as he promised to do in 2020, he would lose the support of many progressives, or at least their enthusiasm. That could guarantee losing at the polls. 

So, assuming President Biden was sincere in 2020 about climate change being the “number one issue facing humanity,” what should he be doing? For one, start talking about climate change. Just as his support for Ukraine has built public support for aid or Zelenskyy, Biden needs to put climate change back on the front page.

Biden also needs to redouble efforts to present scientific evidence of climate change and the need to address it to the public. One promising idea is to hold a high-profile White House conference on the subject, including foreign heads of state. Another idea is to dedicate a month to fighting climate change and encourage States and cities to hold events to raise awareness of the crisis. 

Finally, we all need to demand that candidates for office address the issue. 

Until this happens, not enough will be done about climate change, by President Biden or anyone else.

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.

 

What should we make of the “evolving” war in Ukraine? Should President Biden be congratulated for sending Ukraine more military and related aid, including increasingly advanced munitions? Or is Biden leading us into World War III? These are legitimate questions because American weapons are killing Russian soldiers every day. Pundits suggest that if Putin continues to suffer losses, he will turn to chemical or nuclear weapons. Or might he do something else to slow or stop the flow of arms into Ukraine?

What is the difference between giving Ukraine a lethal drone and a F-16 fighter? Or a nuclear submarine? Or a missile with a nuclear weapon on it? If the U.S. gave Ukraine the capability of launching a raid on Moscow, would the U.S. or Ukraine be responsible for the death and destruction that followed?

These are complicated issues. The war in Ukraine would already be over if the U.S. had not resupplied Zelenskyy’s forces. Tragically, Russia may have won the war, but the dying would be over. Instead, hopes for a quick end of the war prompted by Putin “realizing he made a mistake” have proven naïve. I know, I had those hopes.

Now I wrestle with how to reconcile hatred of Putin with the idea of the U.S. being at war. Morally, as President Biden tells us, Putin must be stopped. But the war in Ukraine is now a conflict in which the U.S. is all but a direct combatant. And that might be an understatement. I wonder whether U.S. service members might be lending a hand in flying the drones that are killing Russians. 

Ukraine is yet another war that the U.S. entered without a formal declaration of war. The public did not demand that the U.S. get involved. Rather, the president and his advisors decided getting involved was the right thing to do. Democrats and Republicans eventually followed his leadership. 

Today the debate in Washington is not over whether we should aid Ukraine, but whether we should aid them more. A vote in the House of Representatives for more weapons passed 361 to 69, with only 54 Republican votes and 15 Democrats voting no. (Want to see a vote where AOC (D-NY) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) voted the same way? This was it. By the way, Andy “Handgun” Harris voted for the bill.)

While I am OK with where we are today, I am nervous. Because Putin is a growing threat to world peace, I welcome Ukraine’s success in fighting back. But, less than a year after getting out of Afghanistan, the U.S. is moving towards direct involvement in another war. Will this “proxy war” evolve into another Afghanistan, or Vietnam?

To date, U.S. service members are not dying, but recall that for the last year or two of the war in Afghanistan, there were very few U.S. casualties. With the benefit of modern military technology, the U.S. was able to wage war in Afghanistan with few casualties. To date, we are waging war in Ukraine with no U. S. casualties. How much longer is that likely to continue?

Much will be written about the war in Ukraine in coming months, most of it an attempt to decipher the thinking of Vladimir Putin or to document the courageous leadership of Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people. Less will be written about the complicated and unresolvable ethical issues raised by the modern rules of war.

In six months, after the mid-term elections are over, the war in Ukraine may still be raging. By then, the U.S. is likely to have made several more gifts of arms to permit Ukrainians to continue the fight against Russia. As the 2024 presidential race gets underway, will Democrats run on their record in Ukraine? Will Republicans criticize them for not arming Ukraine enough or not engaging in direct combat? Or will Republicans, like Trump, blame Biden and the Democrats for leading the country into war and suggest that had Trump won the 2020 election, the war would never have happened?

If the above sounds to you like a murky, confusing, or useless debate, we agree. I cannot see a “right” answer emerging from the discussion or any answer clarifying the “modern rules of war.” The “rules of war,” surprisingly don’t provide an answer. As published by the International Red Cross, the rules “outlaw” things such as torture and killing civilians but don’t define what constitutes being in a war.

I wonder how many sitting members of Congress think the U.S. is currently at war in Ukraine. Isn’t it bizarre that a country can be at war and not be certain that it is?

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.