Join us at our brand new blog - Blue Country Gazette - created for those who think "BLUE." Go to www.bluecountrygazette.blogspot.com

YOUR SOURCE FOR TRUTH

Friday, July 7, 2023

Titan Sub Disaster Highlights Most Everything Wrong with America Today

no image description available

By angryyea

Community

RSS

The New Yorker has an in-depth article about what caused the Titan submersible disaster. I was initially going to leave it for the Sunday Good Reads this weekend, but the longer I thought about the piece, the angrier I got.  The death of these people is a microcosm of how this country is fundamentally broken.

It starts with someone with more money than brains, of course.  Or at least, more money than humility.  Rush, the owner of the company that created the Titan, came from old money and did a turn as a venture capitalist after earning an MBA.  He comes from a breed of people who think that financial engineering is a substitute for actually understanding your business.  The small submersible business actually has a decent safety record, per the article, but that is because until now it has worked closely with the safety regulators.  In the words of one successful submersible builder “We’re using the brainpower of their engineers to feed into our design”.  Rush, though, Rush knew better.

That, of course, is nothing new.  Rich people who think that money equal brains have been a plague on humanity probably since money was shiny rock and pretty weeds.  Here, however, is where the uniquely broken American state made the deaths of Titan passengers almost inevitable.  First, because they weren’t passengers at all — they were employees.

That is right — you weren’t buying a ticket on a sub, you were technically funding research.  You were going on the trip as a “mission specialist.”  Why?  Because the U.S. doesn't care if you kill your employees.  According to the specialists in the article, the regulations around the death of passengers will land you in trouble.  The regulations around the death of crewmembers will not. Labor, as always, is expendable in the United States.  Labor is not valuable, it is not even people — it is just a cost, an expense, like screws and toilet paper.  And, apparently, treated with just as much concern by the government.

The article does not go into details about how this was allowed, but the fact that it was is insane on its face.  How did research funding leave over money to create a profit for the company that ran Titan? Should that not have been a clue that these funds were not actually dedicated to research?  Our ridiculously lax labor regulations likely meant that the passengers did not have to prove that they were actually employees doing real work that they were qualified to do.  The regulatory agencies just defaulted to taking the company’s word for it.

Much of the limited regulation that does exist was easily overcome, apparently by the use of the same fiendishly clever “because the company says so” methodology mentioned above.  The parent company that ran Titan operated out of Washington state, but was officially a Bahamian company, registered in the Bahamas and claimed to operate entirely outside the territorial waters of the United Sates.  So, despite being designed, built, and apparently tested in Washington state, U.S. regulations could not apply because, well, the company said it was really from the Bahamas.  And who are the government to gainsay that?

It gets worse.

The company hired a former Coast Guard admiral, who, in his words, wanted to bring “to help bring operational and regulatory expertise” to the company.  His expertise apparently helped them avoid regulations that might have saved some lives.  I cannot tell you how much this infuriates me.  My father spent twenty years in the Coast Guard.  His friends and co-workers were some of the best people, in every sense of the word, I ever knew.  They dedicated their lives to saving others — and they sometimes paid a terrible price for that dedication.  To have an admiral betray that mission, to turn their back on that trust, for money, is infuriating.  But that is where we are as a society — everything is excusable if it makes you rich, and everyone wants to be rich because if you aren’t, one bad day can ruin your life.

Not every employee of the company turned their back on their responsibility to the people who were buying tickets on the Titan.  David Lochridge was hired to be the chief pilot and director of marine operations.  His contract specified that he was responsible for the safety of the passengers and crew.  He took that responsibility seriously and had the engineering background to know what he was talking about.  When it became clear that the design was faulty, he wrote a report that demanded additional testing before he would authorize voyages.  The company tried to get him to retract the report and then fired him when he would not.  He filed an OSHA complaint, alleging that his firing was in retaliation for raising safety concerns.  The company then sued him, claiming he was trying to defraud the unemployment office.  Lacking the deep pockets of a corporation, he dropped his complaint in exchange for them dropping their suit.

Think about that for a moment — an employee files a complaint based on retaliation for raising safety concerns, and a company is allowed to sue him for an unrelated matter.  Not defend itself on the merits in front of OSHA or other safety experts, but force them to hire a lawyer and defend themselves in court.  That is a system designed to bury safety concerns and ensure that employees never, ever pushback against management’s disregard for the safety of employees.

Oh, and the report filed with OSHA?  They passed it onto the Coast Guard, where apparently nothing was done with it.  I cannot help but wonder if the Admiral’s regulatory expertise helped ensure that outcome?  

There you have it: five people dead for no reason.  The popular story is the arrogance of a rich man killing the people who trusted him.  And that is true as far as it goes.  But scratch the surface, and you find that the system failed at every point.  The overwhelming power capital has to abuse employees, to corrupt people who should be guardians of the public good, to force employees to toe the company line regardless of its truth or impact on other human beings, their ability to avoid regulations on little more than their own word — all combined to ensure that a vessel that should never have been allowed to operate was allowed instead to murder people.

It does not have to be this way, of course.  We could value the lives of the people who do the work.   We could prevent companies from filing retaliatory lawsuits against employees.  We could enforce regulations on companies that operate in our territory regardless of where they incorporate. We could build a robust safety net so people aren’t as desperate for a livelihood.  It would mean taking on the power of capital, never an easy thing.  But the story of the Titan is not just the story of a rich man’s hubris.  It is the story of how the collective hubris of rich men have warped society so deeply that safety, employee lives, and commonsense could find no purchase.  If we don’t fix that, those same flaws in the system will continue to lie in wait, ready to hurt or kill more people.

In case you are wondering, that is most definitely the foot of an elephant, symbol of the most corrupt group of primarily rich honky men to ever call themselves a political party.

Thursday, July 6, 2023

AOC Urges Congress to Consider 'Subpoenas' if Roberts Won't Testify About SCOTUS Gift Scandal

 AOC Urges Congress to Consider 'Subpoenas' if Chief Justice Roberts Won't Testify About SCOTUS Gift Scandal Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (photo: Brittany Greeson/Getty Images)

 
 
Brent D. Griffiths / Business Insider 
 

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez raised the possibility that Congress should consider subpoenaing Chief Justice John Roberts if he stands by his refusal to testify about ethical questions hanging over the high court.

"And so I believe that ... if Chief John Roberts will not come before Congress for an investigation voluntarily, I believe that we should be considering subpoenas," Ocasio-Cortez told CNN's Dana Bash on "State of the Nation" on Sunday. "We should be considering investigations."

Ocasio-Cortez repeatedly blasted the court last week as Roberts and the five other conservative justices handed major victories to the right that effectively ended affirmative action, opened the door to discrimination against LGBTQ+ Americans, and axed Biden's current student loan forgiveness plan.

The New York Democrat took particular issue with the court's ruling in Biden v. Nebraska, arguing that Justice Samuel Alito's acceptance of billionaire Paul Singer financing a lavish fish trip undercut the court's "legitimacy." According to ProPublica, which broke the news of Alito's Alaska fishing trip, Singer has given millions to the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank that has taken public positions on a number of cases pending before the court — one of those cases was Biden v. Nebraska. Alito, in an extraordinary Wall Street Journal op-ed, denied any wrongdoing or that he has discussed court business with Singer.

"This SCOTUS' corruption undercuts its own legitimacy by putting its rulings up for sale," Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter after the decision.

While Republicans control the House, Ocasio-Cortez pointed out that Senate Democrats are investigating the numerous reports about unreported gifts to the justices through the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee. But Roberts has thus far declined to appear before the panel.

"Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by the Chief Justice of the United States is exceedingly rare, as one might expect in light of the separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence," Roberts wrote in April in response to Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin's invitation.

Along with his invitation, Roberts sent along a statement about ethics that he said the eight other current justices had agreed to try to follow. But the statement reaffirmed the belief that only individual justices should decide whether or not they should recuse themselves.



Wednesday, July 5, 2023

Why Was Trump Hoarding Classified Government Documents? Could it be...STUPIDITY?

Why Was Trump Hoarding Classified Government Documents?  

‘But what seems the most likely explanation is the simplest, stupidest, and most aggravating one: that Trump had no plan for the documents, except perhaps for use as souvenirs, trophies to be shown off, maybe as evidence for petty score-settling.' (photo: Sean Rayford/Guardian UK)

We don’t know the motive for the president’s retention of files at Mar-a-Lago and Bedminster, but let’s not rule out stupidity
Moira Donegan / Guardian UK

 

There are many surreal revelations in Jack Smith’s federal indictment of Donald Trump. There are the texts between various Trump underlings and Walt Nauta, the Trump body man who has also been indicted, showing the president directing his employees to move the boxes containing classified information back and forth to various locations around his properties in Palm Beach and Bedminster, New Jersey. There is the annoyed missive from Trump’s wife Melania, trying to make sure the boxes don’t crowd out room for her luggage on a private plane. There is the claim from Trump’s former attorney, compelled to testify against him in an unusual arrangement, that the former president suggested, with a Grinch-like pinching gesture, that the lawyer destroy confidential documents to prevent them from being produced in a subpoena. There is a text message Nauta sent to another Trump underling, showing a box having fallen over in a storage room at Mar-a-Lago, secret documents spilling on to the floor – whoops.

What there is not, conspicuously, is a motive. Over the course of more than a year following his departure from office, it appears that Trump spent considerable effort and resources in transporting the documents with him and keeping them near at hand – and that later, as the federal government began to demand the boxes back, that he then went out of his way to keep and conceal them, going to great length, sparing no expense, and ultimately breaking the law so much that he incurred himself a series of felony charges. Anyone can tell you how this behavior is typical of Trump: how it reflects his pettiness, his contempt for the law, his willingness to sacrifice and endanger others. What no one can tell you is why he did it.

It would be more convenient – legally, for Jack Smith and his prosecutors, and politically, for Joe Biden, for the Democrats, and for the growing number of Republicans who are looking to challenge Trump in the 2024 Republican primary – if we could say precisely why Trump wanted to keep the documents so badly, exactly what he wanted them for. It would be very easy to make a case to a skeptical jury – or to a divided American people – that Trump was a danger and could not be trusted with national secrets again if it could be said that he wanted to keep the documents for any of the straightforwardly dangerous and nefarious reasons that have been speculated: if he was seeking to sell national security secrets to the Saudis, say, or to Israel; if he was hoping, as some have suggested, that he one day might be able to blackmail someone powerful, like the president of France.

It’s very possible that Trump had concocted such a plan. There is much that we do not know about the investigations into Trump, including about the special counsel’s query into his illegal document retention. But we do know that in the past, we know that he has gone further, and risked more, in the pursuit of even more harebrained schemes.

But what seems the most likely explanation is the simplest, stupidest, and most aggravating one: that Trump had no plan for the documents, except perhaps for use as souvenirs, trophies to be shown off, maybe as evidence for petty score-settling. That the documents that Trump smuggled out of the White House and squirreled away around Mar-a-Lago and Bedminster were not instruments in a coherent, well-formed plan, but instead mere ornaments to Trump’s ego. In transcripts of Trump’s statements about the documents that were included in the indictment, and in audio of Trump showing some of the secret papers off to a writer that was recently released by CNN, Trump uses the documents to contradict a former national security official he was then in a spat with in the press; he tells one interlocutor not to get too close to one of the secret papers, seeming to want to create a hush of reverence for the documents in place of respecting their confidentiality in the first place. At these moments, Trump does not sound as if he has a plan. He sounds as if he wants to impress the people in the room with him, and like he can think no further ahead than to how good it will feel to get their praise.

Why did Trump want the secret documents? Why did he refuse to return them? The answer may be the one truest to Trump’s piddling, puerile character: because they looked cool; because they reminded him of his own importance; because the government had asked for them back, and Trump has never missed an opportunity to throw a petulant little tantrum.

It is this smallness of Trump’s character, and the possible triviality of his motives, that poses a peculiar risk to both of the cases being made against Trump – the one being pursued in a Miami courthouse, and the one being pursued in public. Because there has always been an uncanny mismatch with Trump, an incongruence: between the awesome and vast powers he had in office, the historical forces he unleashed on America, and the horrible ways his presidency warped millions of lives, on the one hand; and on the other, his pettiness, his vanity, his short-sightedness, his piddling personal grievances and constant need to be flattered and reassured.

The gap between the seriousness of Trump’s role in history and his unseriousness as a person is the strange place where the documents case – and, now, much of American political thought – risks getting stuck. The very silliness of Trump’s use of the documents undercuts the grave risks posed by his hoarding of them. How can such a powerful country have been made so vulnerable by someone so stupid?

Let us count the manifestations of Trump's stupidity : "His pettiness, his vanity, his short-sightedness, his piddling personal grievances and constant need to be flattered and reassured."

Tuesday, July 4, 2023

A FEARLESS WAR HERO FOR THE 4TH OF JULY: How a Celebrated Ukrainian Writer Turned Into a War Crimes Researcher (In Memoriam)

How a Celebrated Ukrainian Writer Turned Into a War Crimes Researcher (In Memoriam) Victoria Amelina. (photo: Twitter)

Kate Tsurkan / The Kyiv Independent

"EDITOR'S NOTE: Be aware as you read this article that its subject, celebrated Ukrainian author turned war crimes researcher, Victoria Amelina died Sunday from injuries she sustained when a Russian S-300 missile struck a crowded pizza restaurant in Kramatorsk, Ukraine on 27 June 2023. In all the attack injured 47 killing 12, including 3 children. Victoria Amelina becomes the thirteenth victim to die. Victoria was accompanying delegation of Colombian writers and journalists, they too were subject to the effects of the blast."

Victoria Amelina | Poem About a Crow

In a barren springtime field
Stands a woman dressed in black
Crying her sisters’ names
Like a bird in the empty sky
She’ll cry them all out of herself
The one that flew away too soon
The one that had begged to die
The one that couldn’t stop death
The one that has not stopped waiting
The one that has not stopped believing
The one that still grieves in silence
She’ll cry them all into the ground
As though sowing the field with pain
And from pain and the names of women
Her new sisters will grow from the earth
And again will sing joyfully of life
But what about her, the crow?
She will stay in this field forever
Because only this cry of hers
Holds all those swallows in the air
Do you hear how she calls
Each one by her name?
###

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has galvanized Ukrainians into action, compelling them to figure out how they can contribute to their country’s victory. Oftentimes, it has called for a radical departure from the known comforts of their daily lives.

That’s exactly what happened to Ukrainian writer Victoria Amelina.

Soon after Feb. 24, 2022, Amelina started volunteering in humanitarian aid warehouses in her native Lviv, a city in the west of Ukraine that welcomed thousands of internally displaced Ukrainians. She herself provided refuge to people who had fled war-affected regions.

The atmosphere in Lviv during the first weeks of Russia’s all-out war was fraught with fear.

The windows in the apartment of Amelina’s mother were shattered when a Russian missile struck the nearby Lviv tank repair plant, and less than a month into the war, the first deaths in Amelina’s circle of friends started to become known.

“We thought that anything could happen back then,” Amelina, 37, told the Kyiv Independent. “Even a Russian offensive from Belarus with Lviv as the main target seemed possible.”

She was walking along Zamarstynivska Street, where the Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin who coined the term “genocide” once lived, when she realized that she wanted to do more to advance the Ukrainian war effort.

Amelina is one of Ukraine’s most celebrated young literary figures and a common presence at literary festivals both in Ukraine and abroad. However, she didn’t want to just write texts about the war or speak about it at international events. In late March 2022, Amelina made the decision to train to become a war crimes researcher.

“I don’t think law and human rights are fields reserved for people with law degrees. Law is about human beings ultimately, or at least it should have people at the center; this is what makes law similar to literature,” Amelina explained.

Amelina reached out to the Ukrainian human rights organization Truth Hounds, which has been working for the past eight years to document human rights violations and crimes not only in Ukraine but elsewhere in eastern Europe and Central Asia.

Training began with an initial theoretical course that took two days to complete, accompanied by a week-long supervised field mission. The overall training period concluded by the end of May, and there were many nights spent reviewing the Geneva conventions and the Rome Statute to the howl of the air raid sirens.

As of mid-March, the Prosecutor General’s Office has recorded over 80,000 war crimes allegedly committed by the Russian military in Ukraine since the start of the full-scale invasion. The task of investigators is already monumental and will only become more challenging as the Ukrainian military continues to recapture territory.

Due to the number of crimes, Ukrainian officials are working in coordination with trained civilian organizations, both local and international, in an effort to document these crimes. War crimes researchers pass along their findings to the Prosecutor General’s Office, the International Criminal Court (ICC), and other relevant legal bodies.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian officials have been meeting with representatives of the ICC and coordinating with EU officials, as well as over 30 countries, to establish a war crimes tribunal that would someday bring justice to Ukraine’s victims.

A missing colleague

Amelina’s foray into working as a war crimes researcher happened to coincide with the disappearance of her colleague Volodymyr Vakulenko, a celebrated children’s literature writer who had remained in the village of Kapitolivka near Izium in Khakiv Oblast to care for his disabled son.

“I just knew there would be thousands of war crimes even without this particular case,” Amelina said.

According to Kharkiv Oblast police, on March 24, 2022, Russian forces took Vakulenko away by force in a car with the Russian war symbol “Z”.

The entire Ukrainian literature community was desperately holding onto hope that Vakulenko would be found alive after liberation, despite the odds.

As a member of the Ukrainian branch of PEN, the cultural and human rights non-governmental organization that supports writers worldwide, Amelina had been doing everything she could to raise awareness about Vakulenko’s case.

“I couldn’t stop thinking about him,” she said, a sentiment shared by the rest of the Ukrainian literature community.

Truth Hounds started planning their first trip to Kharkiv Oblast as soon as the Ukrainian counteroffensive in the area began in September. Amelina volunteered to join them, pulling out of a literary festival in Sweden that she was supposed to attend at that time.

During the field mission in Kharkiv Oblast with Truth Hounds, Amelina wanted to check in on Vakulenko’s parents, who were also in Kapitolivka, as soon as possible. However, the war crimes research team found three torture chambers in the city of Balakliia alone and spent several days documenting war crimes in Verbivka and Izium.

The Ukrainian literature community’s hopes were extinguished on Nov. 28 when DNA analysis confirmed the body of Volodymyr Vakulenko was in grave number 319 of the infamous mass graveyard in the forest near Izium.

Serhiy Bolvinov, the head of the investigation department of the Kharkiv Oblast police, told BBC Ukraine in December 2022 that investigators had established the presence of two 9 mm caliber bullets in Vakulenko’s body, which “probably” could be bullets that were fired from a Makarov pistol.

The diary that Vakulenko started keeping shortly after the start of the full-scale invasion has remained a testament to his memory and what Ukrainians like him had to endure during the Russian occupation. Once Amelina made it to Vakulenko’s parents, she and his father searched for the diary, which they knew he had managed to bury near a cherry tree in the yard before the Russians came for him the last time.

“As a writer, I feel this gesture and it hurts me a lot: It is the last attempt of a writer to speak and be heard, read,” Amelina told BBC Ukraine in December 2022.

Vakulenko’s diary is now kept in the Kharkiv Literary Museum for posterity. His final entry ended with: “Everything will be Ukraine! I believe in victory.”

A prerequisite for lasting peace

“Every survivor of occupation is unique. Most people are happy to talk to us,” Amelina said. Many of them show their thanks by providing her and other war crimes researchers with parting gifts – especially food. She has received walnuts, apples, and other food items from people’s gardens.

“One man even offered me a bottle of Russian beer from the occupation times but I decided against trying it,” she added.

According to Amelina, each field mission with Truth Hounds typically lasts about a week. During that time, she is able to talk to two to three people per day, and some testimonies can take up to six hours to record. One meeting often provides a lead on the next, with survivors mentioning other people – such as friends, family members, or neighbors – who were detained or tortured.

Before each testimony, war crimes researchers need to make certain that victims are stable enough to psychologically relive the hell they’ve endured.

“You don't talk to someone who is crying or on the verge of tears,” Amelina said.

“Ideally, you have to grasp what it is that gives them strength. For example, if you’re talking to a woman who lost her son but has grandchildren, it’s smart to talk about them for a bit. Regardless of the technique, empathy is key – you have to care enough so the person comes out of it stronger than before.”

There is no discernible difference between war crimes committed in Kharkiv, Kherson, or any other oblast in Ukraine, Amelina said. Russian forces have shown no hesitation in resorting to torture and murder, targeting Ukrainian civilians from all walks of life, including teachers, doctors, children's book writers, and even children.

The devastating impact of Russia’s crimes are revealed not only in the testimonies of survivors but also in the landscapes of the once-occupied territories of Ukraine, which still bear the signs of their brutality. When it comes to documenting the destruction of Ukraine’s cultural heritage – including libraries, museums, and other institutions – war crimes researchers simply need to look around.

As for the questions posed to survivors, some organizations send researchers out into the field with preestablished questionnaires. According to Amelina, she prefers to work without them.

“We just start from the beginning, from life before the war. For example: ‘Were you born here?’, ‘How long have you lived here?’, ‘How long have you worked in the library?’, ‘Did you expect the invasion to begin?’, ‘How did you first encounter the military?’ It all depends. These are just examples,” Amelina said.

“When you catch a phrase like, ‘After we saw the dead POWs’ or something along those lines you start digging deeper,” she added.

According to Amelina, the questions that follow should always be open-ended, such as how the military officers were dressed, what they looked like, how they spoke, and so on – it’s important for war crimes researchers not to lead on the victims and let them speak naturally.

“We just need the truth,” Amelina said.

Despite the often difficult nature of fieldwork, there can be the occasional heartfelt moment. Amelina recalled one such instance when she was recording the testimony of a man in Kherson Oblast. He was describing to her the harrowing account of his kidnapping and torture at the hands of Russian occupying forces, while his children ran around them, playing and laughing.

Amelina was deeply moved by his children's ability to find joy and laughter even amidst the difficult circumstances of war. After she finished recording their father’s testimony, the children approached her, and she offered them some candy, telling them that their father was a hero.

She acknowledges that the children were probably too young to understand the significance of her words, and would probably not remember them in the future. Nevertheless, she felt it was important to say it for their parents' benefit. "I said it more for their mom and dad to hear," Amelina explained.

There are some people who are too frightened to speak with war crimes researchers. Other survivors agree to speak but later refuse to sign the release papers which permit to pass their testimony to Ukrainian law enforcement, the International Criminal Court, or even just for safekeeping in historical archives.

“Such instances feel like a defeat to me,” Amelina said. “It means I failed to help that survivor in achieving justice.”

Although the work of a war crimes researcher can be arduous, taxing, and potentially traumatizing, Amelina remains steadfast in her conviction that justice will eventually be served to Russian war criminals.

“This is a prerequisite for lasting peace, healing survivors and witnesses’ trauma, and completing Ukraine’s democratic transformation. We need to stay healthy and live long enough to witness all the trials,” she explained.

Words for war

Amelina hasn’t entirely put her literary career on hold – she still writes and occasionally attends literary festivals abroad.

Ukrainian writers understand that it is vital to continue promoting their culture, given that Russia’s genocidal war has committed a multitude of crimes in an effort to erase it, such as destroying cultural heritage sites, burning Ukrainian books, looting priceless artifacts from museums, and imposing Russian curriculums in schools of the occupied territories.

However, Amelina acknowledged that initially, it was difficult for her to reconcile the stark contrast between discovering torture chambers in liberated territories one day and speaking in front of an audience of curious readers the next. Even walking around tranquil cities sometimes took on an unexpectedly distressing quality.

“You cannot stop thinking that it’s better to stay on the pavement and avoid grass as there could be mines,” Amelina said. “Even in London or Berlin.”

Many foreigners come up to her at international literary events asking how she deals with the trauma of a war with no foreseeable end in sight.

“I tell them that they help me, because they listen to me,” she said.

War crimes testimonies are a far cry from the flourishing poems and prose that Amelina is known for. When speaking to the survivors of Russian occupation there is only the need to document hard facts. However, Amelina's writing has long exhibited a profound sense of empathy, and perhaps that’s what makes her particularly well-suited to assist survivors of Russian war crimes in amplifying their voices.

Russia's war has made its way into Amelina's own writing, as it has for most writers in Ukraine over the past nine years, especially since the start of the full-scale invasion. Currently, she is focused on penning a non-fiction book that delves into the tireless work of journalists, human rights activists, lawyers, and volunteers who document Russian war crimes.

“It’s impossible to write about anything other than war now,” Amelina said. “There’s just no other way.”



Monday, July 3, 2023

Supreme Court out of control, must be reformed

no image description available

PUBLISHED TO:

Blue Country Gazette Blog

Rim Country Gazette Blog

The Supreme Court wrapped up this term with a pair of completely arbitrary and capricious rulings, based on lies and controversies manufactured by far-right political actors, restricting LGBTQ protections and striking down President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program. Both cases were deeply flawed procedurally, but that wasn’t going to stop the six far-right extremists on the court from imposing their will. This illegitimate court has once again wreaked untold future damage on this country. It has to be stopped.

In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the court took on a case conjured up by the far-right Christian group Alliance Defending Freedom based on a lie, and then, in the words of Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent, used that case to “for the first time in its history, [grant] a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.” That opens the door for public businesses to decide they don’t want to serve LGBTQ couples, or interracial couples, or disabled couples, or members of churches they don’t like.

The plaintiff, Lorie Smith, insists that she wants nothing more than to create a business making customized wedding websites for straight couples, but the state of Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws are preventing her from doing that. She’s supposedly been making these plans for years, having filed the case in 2016, but never created the business. She was never sanctioned by the state for turning away an LGBTQ couple because her business did not exist. The case was bolstered initially with a supposed inquiry from a gay man, conveniently submitted just a day after the case was filed, which turned out to be a complete fake.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, acknowledged, "While Ms. Smith has laid the groundwork for her new venture, she has yet to carry out her plans." The case shouldn’t exist!  There’s nothing to litigate because she was never harmed, but this illegitimate court majority took the case anyway and used it to once again erode civil rights and set back equality gains.

The majority then announced, with an opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts, that it was overthrowing the student loan forgiveness program, granting a request from six Republican state attorneys general on behalf of a loan servicer, the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, that did not want to be used as a plaintiff. Without MOHELA, the states did not have standing to bring the suit—they are not directly harmed.

Roberts and the majority weren’t going to be bothered by the fact that their plaintiff was an unwilling participant in this highly partisan scheme. "By law and function, MOHELA is an instrumentality of Missouri ... The [debt forgiveness] plan will cut MOHELA's revenues, impairing its efforts to aid Missouri college students,” Roberts wrote. “This acknowledged harm to MOHELA in the performance of its public function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself."

Never mind that in oral arguments the state admitted that MOHELA wasn’t aiding Missouri college students because it hadn’t paid into that fund in 15 years, and “said in its own financial documents that it doesn’t plan to make any payments in the future.” This too was all made up.

Justice Elana Kagan was having none of that in her dissent. The court's "first overreach is deciding it at all" she wrote, saying that the states did not have a right to sue. "The plaintiffs in this case are six States that have no personal stake in the Secretary' loan forgiveness plan. They are classic ideological plaintiffs: They think the plan a very bad idea, but they are no worse off because the Secretary differs."

And off she goes:

The statute provides the Secretary with broad authority to give emergency relief to student-loan borrowers, including by altering usual discharge rules. What the Secretary did fits comfortably within that delegation. But the Court forbids him to proceed. As in other cases, the rules of the game change when Congress enacts broad delegations allowing agencies to take substantial regulatory measures.

This, she says, is "no proper role for a court. And it is a danger to a democratic order." That brought a pearl-clutching rebuke from Roberts, who answered her dissent by declaring it "harmful to this institution and our country."

The harm to the institution is entirely self-inflicted by Roberts and his ethically challenged majority. The court continues to take on flawed cases that have no business being heard, and making arbitrary rulings based on their political whims, dressed up in originalist fantasies. It has to be stopped

That could include enforcing a code of ethics, legislation the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to take up after the July recess, and measures recommended by the Brennan Center, such as limiting justices’ terms to 18 years and ensuring that each president gets two appointments to the court per presidential term. It would create a revolving core of justices, giving those whose terms were up the chance to take senior status and still participate as needed either on the Supreme Court or on a lower court.

All of that would be great, but what the country urgently requires is an expansion of the court to block this six-member wrecking ball.

KCOTUS - Hear ye, Hear ye.  The Kangaroo Court of the United States is now in session.

 

Sunday, July 2, 2023

Time to Abolish Filibuster, Unpack Supreme Court

 

By Rep. Adam Schiff

California Senate Candidate 

2 July 2023

Blue Country Gazette Blog

Rim Country Gazette Blog

After this week of disastrous rulings from the Supreme Court, it’s clear that our highest Court is in desperate need of reform. And that starts with expanding and unstacking the Supreme Court.

Tweet from Adam reads: Expanding the size of the Supreme Court isn't extreme or unprecedented — but the opinions of this Court certainly are

The Supreme Court is, by far, the most unrepresentative U.S. institution in our government, yet it is also one of the most powerful.

I’ve spent years talking about the need to expand, unstack, and reform the Supreme Court after Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell stacked it with partisans. This week we saw firsthand the consequences of its imbalance.

In the four years following Mitch McConnell's refusal to even consider President Obama’s 2016 nomination of Merrick Garland to the Court, McConnell and Trump were able to push through three unpopular, problematic, far-right nominees.

This has led to a 6-3, partisan and reactionary Court majority that just this week has:

❌ Ended affirmative action

❌ Attacked LGBTQ+ rights

❌ Struck down President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan

That’s on top of overturning Roe v. Wade, just last year.

All of these rulings are shocking and heartbreaking and negatively affect countless Americans' lives — especially since SCOTUS is supposed to be an impartial and nonpartisan legal body — but given the makeup of this partisan Court, it’s also not surprising.

And with members of the Court enjoying lifelong appointments, we’re stuck with their staunchly partisan, extreme agenda for generations to come unless we act now.

Today’s Supreme Court is unfair, unjust, and no longer reflects what our founding fathers intended it to be — instead it’s being used as a purely partisan tool for Republicans to unilaterally reverse progress and strike down our fundamental rights.

We must unpack the Court by expanding the number of justices on the Court, instituting term limits, and enacting a code of ethics like every other federal court. I’m proud to be sponsoring legislation in Congress that will make these important reforms.

Congress must take action. It’s time we abolish the filibuster and unpack the Court if we want any chance of restoring legitimacy and ensuring our nation’s highest court doesn’t continue to be used to advance a partisan agenda at odds with the interests of the American people.



Saturday, July 1, 2023

Biden Lays Out New Student Debt Relief Plan After Supreme Court Ruling

Biden Lays Out New Student Debt Relief Plan After Supreme Court Ruling  
President Joe Biden. (photo: NBC)
President says ‘the court misinterpreted the constitution’ as he announces intention to use another law for debt forgiveness


Guardian UK

Joe Biden vowed the “fight was not over” on Friday after the US supreme court ruled against his landmark student debt forgiveness plan.

“I think the court misinterpreted the constitution,” the president said, delivering remarks at the White House and announcing his intention to pivot to another law to find another path forward.

The 6-3 decision from the court dealt a blow to an estimated 40 million borrowers who had hoped the $430bn plan would allow the 2003 Heroes Act to help curb the ongoing costs of their education. The law gave the secretary of education authority to make changes to any provision of applicable student aid program laws in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001.

Biden said 16 million people had already been approved for the program, which would have given them $10,000 to $20,000 in relief. “More homes would’ve been bought, more businesses would’ve been started,” he said.

Biden promised to now turn to the Higher Education Act of 1965 to restore student debt relief. He also plans to enact a 12-month repayment program that would help people with student debt avoid defaulting on their loans if they couldn’t pay and avoid years of bad credit ratings.

But the supreme court decision struck down a major tenet of the Biden administration’s program with the 2024 election quickly approaching. Helping combat student debt was one of Biden’s campaign vows, especially to progressive voters in his base.

Asked if he had failed to deliver on his promise, Biden reacted quickly. “I didn’t give any false hope,” he said. “Republicans snatched away the hope that was given.”

Biden also doubled down on what he called the “hypocrisy of Republican elected officials” in an earlier statement. He pointed to the higher cost of the paycheck protection program approved by Republicans in 2020. The Covid-19 pandemic-era program gave businesses loans for their payroll and allowed the principal of the loan to be partially or fully forgiven. The program benefited some members of Congress.

“They had no problem with billions in pandemic-related loans to businesses – including hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions of dollars for their own businesses. And those loans were forgiven,” Biden said in the statement. “But when it came to providing relief to millions of hard-working Americans, they did everything in their power to stop it.

“It’s only about forgiving loans they have to pay,” he said at the White House.

And that ball is aimed directly at young people who are struggling to survive in an economy that coddles the rich.  After all, it costs big money to buy a Supreme Court justice.