The Trump/GOP descent into chaos was entirely predictable by late last summer

The Trump/GOP descent into chaos was entirely predictable by late last summer.

The New York Times just published a really detailed analysis of the national nominating convention delegate selection process in the Republican Party, and how it is playing out.  The question now isn't whether Trump gets the nomination, but, rather, how ugly the process will unfold.

One really interesting question is how the Evangelical vote will continue to split, particularly in light of the strange (instructive?) Trump responses to his rabid support by avowed White Supremacists, including the Ku Klux Klan.  Some are disgusted by Trump; others don't seem to care about his flouting of their view of Christian norms of decent behavior. No one really knows yet what choices members of the former group will make when the November election roles around.  These choices will tell us much about the actual nature (and splits) in among self-described Evangelicals.  See my blog post here.

Both of these dynamics have been clear since late last summer.  It is astounding how long it took the Republican "establishment", such as it is, and most of the media, to recognize them. See my blog post here.   

For those election geeks who really want to get into the weeds, check out this resource.

The Bork/Kennedy Precedent: Meeting in the Middle. But Is That Possible Anymore?

In 1987, the United States had a conservative President, Ronald Reagan, and a liberal majority Senate. President Reagan nominated extreme conservative D.C. Circuit Court Judge Robert Bork to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Judge Bork was properly rejected by the Senate. I say "properly" not principally because I disagree with Judge Bork's judicial ideology, but because, in our constitutional system, Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. So what should the role of the Senate be when there is a huge ideological divide between the President and the Senate?

The Bork fight could have set a very good precedent: That when there is such a divide, the President should nominate, and the Senate should confirm, a qualified person whose judicial philosophy is somewhere in the middle. The appointment of Ninth Circuit Court Judge Anthony Kennedy to that seat met that standard.

This approach could have been confirmed and given precedential impact in 1991, when Justice Thurgood Marshall died. President George H.W. Bush nominated D.C. Circuit Court Judge Clarence Thomas, someone who was just as conservative as Judge Bork. And, as in 1987, Democrats controlled the Senate. But rather than focus on Thomas's judicial philosophy, too many Democrats got side-tracked by the Anita Hill scandal allegations. Lost in the sturm und drang of that controversy, the Democrats lost sight of the best lesson of the Bork battle: the desirability of meeting in the middle. And Thomas was confirmed by a close vote. (Note that the Democrats did not engage in a filibuster.)

Now we are faced with a situation that is the mirror image of 1987. We have a liberal Democratic President and a conservative majority Republican Senate. But rather than insist that President Obama send a middle of the road nominee, the Republicans refuse to consider anyone nominated by Obama. On one level, this is just another Republican rejection of Obama's legitimacy as President -- even though he received 66 million votes (a clear majority) in 2012, while Republican congressional candidates received only 40 million in 2014. 

As an institutional process matter, the Senate should give any presidential nominee to the Supreme Court a hearing and then an up or down vote. If there are not enough votes to confirm, so be it. If it takes a couple of nominees, so be it. 

Sadly, however, there no longer appears to be any middle ground in Supreme Court judicial politics. So an Anthony Kennedy-type compromise seems impossible. But the Republicans, to their discredit, do not even want to try. 

Here is another aspect of the current controversy that should be explored. Someone should ask Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell the following question: Suppose Hillary Clinton is elected President this November, but the Republicans hold on to the Senate. Or the Democrats regain the Senate, but do not have a filibuster-proof majority. Would Senator McConnell continue to advocate obstruction of the Democratic President's nominee?  Would the Court then limp along with 8 members?  And what would happen if there were another vacancy?  Or several vacancies?

We have a pretty sound Constitution, but it is not idiot-proof. 

Recess Appointment to the Supreme Court and the Will of the People.

Fox News Reports that President Obama has until February 22 or 23 to make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/13/obama-has-rare-parliamentary-window-to-make-recess-appointment-to-succeed-scalia.html?intcmp=hpbt1

In a normal world, such a tactic by President Obama would be outrageous. But since the Senate Republicans have made it unambiguously clear that they would not even hold hearings, much less a vote, on ANYONE he would nominate, maybe he should use this obstructionism as a reason to at least fill the position for a while so the Court can get its work done. Since it would clearly be an interim appointment, maybe he should really make heads explode by appointing Laurence Tribe. 

As for the "will of the people," the 66 million votes Obama received in 2012 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012) are much more of a mandate than the 40 million votes the Republican Congressional candidates received in 2014 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2014)

In any event, Democratic politicians should start actually using these electoral FACTS when the Republicans talk about Obama thwarting the “will of the people.”

Cruz will try to use Justice Scalia's death to vault himself ahead of Trump in South Carolina

Tonight's Republican debate should be interesting. I suspect that Ted Cruz will wrap himself in the mantle of Antonin Scalia, noting his (Cruz's) clerkship on the Supreme Court and his arguments before the Supreme Court as Texas Solicitor General.  Cruz will try to use Scalia's death to vault himself ahead of Trump in South Carolina. 

Some useful links on Cruz and the Supreme Court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/us/politics/a-history-for-senate-candidate-ted-cruz-and-supreme-court.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/opinion/the-brutalism-of-ted-cruz.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/us/politics/as-supreme-court-clerk-ted-cruz-made-death-penalty-his-cause.html

Man Plans and God Laughs?

My brother Lewis is a resident of the Jewish Foundation for Group Homes, one of the finest organizations with which I have ever been associated. Recently, I wrote this article for its Bruce K. Smith Sibling Network newsletter, The Siblink.


SIBLING SCRIBBLINGS

Man Plans and God Laughs?
By: David Fishback, brother of JFGH resident, Lewis

There is an old Yiddish saying that goes, "Der mentsh trakht un Got lakht": Man plans and God laughs.

My parents planned for a family. I was born in 1947. My brother Lewis was born 3-1/2 years later. But not as they had planned. An oxygen deficiency at birth left him mentally disabled.

Well, God may laugh at our plans, but that does not stop us from readjusting and making new plans to fit new realities. I was brought up to understand that someday I would shoulder the responsibility for Lewis' care. Because my mother Hilda, who passed away a year ago at the age of 95, was so dedicated and vibrant for so long, we had many years to accomplish that transition.

So our family planned, and God did not laugh.

And sometimes a community, through hard work and dedication, acts in what we like to see as the most Godly of ways. My mother joined with so many other wonderful parents to found the Jewish Foundation for Group Homes. And as a rehabilitation professional, Hilda served JFGH in many capacities. Lewis has been a resident of the Rubin Home since its founding in 1991. There, he has had as good a life as possible, with the stability provided by the excellent staff and his housemates (most of whom have also lived there since the beginning).

So JFGH planned, and God did not laugh.

Lewis is an enigma. He is without speech, so it is hard to know how much he understands. When our father died in 1993, and our mother died nearly 22 years later, he seemed to understand death, but I really don't know how much. Thankfully, those deaths did not put him into an emotional tailspin, which I had feared might happen. Perhaps the fact that he saw them in their physical declines enabled him to understand what was coming. It was a blessing that we were able to bring him for a family dinner at Landow House shortly before my mom's last illness. Lewis and my mom held hands through dinner. But I don't know how much he really understood. Again, he is an enigma.

But we tried to plan, and, it seems, God did not laugh.

Lewis has a precise memory. When he is focused on something the way he believes it should be, he is relentless in making sure that it follows his plan. He is extremely protective of his housemates.

Lewis is into structure and routine. When I visit him at Rubin, or when he comes to our house, we always go for a walk after eating, weather permitting. At our house, after dinner, we sit together and watch television. It is a routine he seems to enjoy. It is hard to really interact with Lewis, but he seems comfortable in our routines.

So I do not have the kind of heart-warming interactions that many JFGH siblings have with their brothers or sisters. My wife Bobbi cheerfully makes wonderful meals when Lewis comes to our house, and is always supportive. As are my two adult sons and their spouses. Our two-year old granddaughter recently met Lewis. I have no doubt that as she grows older, she will also feel the love for and commitment to Lewis that the rest of us feel.

By providing a safe, secure home for Lewis, JFGH has made all of this possible.

We have all planned, and God has not laughed at us.

http://www.jfgh.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/THE-SIBLINK__January-2016-1.pdf (pp. 3-4)

What Would Dr. King Occupy?

Photo of DC Occupy on Freedom Plaza, November 12, 2011

Earlier today, Donald Trump spoke at Liberty University, ostensibly in the context of honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on the day of his annual birthday commemoration.  His comments were uninspiring, to say the least.  This should not be surprising, and not just because the only thing Mr. Trump really talks about is himself.  For Dr. King's life and work were the complete antithesis of Mr. Trump's.

This presentation I made at our Temple's 2012 Martin Luther King Shabbat Service illustrates a large part of the total disconnect between the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize Winner and the likely winner of the 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination.

TEMPLE EMANUEL OF MARYLAND January 13, 2012

“What Would Dr. King Occupy?”

David Fishback

What Would Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Occupy? A timely question on this celebration of his birth. But the answer is not so much whether an 83 year old Dr. King would have been at Zuccotti Park, McPherson Square, or Freedom Plaza this past year. The answer lies in how he would have gotten to such a decision. And to explore that question, we must first explore the Prophetic Tradition.

In 1962, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel published The Prophets, his major scholarly and spiritual work on the meaning of the Prophetic Tradition in Judaism. The next year, 1963, he met Dr. King and they formed a friendship and alliance based on their common view of the Prophetic Tradition.

Rabbi Heschel explained that the prophets’ words were a “ceaseless shattering of indifference”. He reminded us that “prophet was an individual who said No to his society, condemning its habits and assumptions, its complacency”.

Rabbi Heschel noted the challenge faced by every prophet: "The prophet faces a coalition of callousness and established authority, and undertakes to stop a mighty stream with mere words. Had the purpose been [simply] to express great ideas, prophecy would have had to be acclaimed as a triumph. Yet the purpose of prophecy is to conquer callousness, to change the inner man as well as to revolutionize history." 

Here is how Rabbi Heschel described the time of the Prophet Amos: “There was pride, plenty, and splendor in the land, elegance in the cities, and might in the palaces. The rich [THE ONE PERCENT?] had their summer and winter palaces adorned with costly ivory, gorgeous couches with damask pillows, on which they reclined at their sumptuous feasts. [But a]t the same time there was no justice in the land, the poor were afflicted, . . . . and the judges were corrupt." In essence, Amos saw a society in which the rich amassed their wealth by keeping their boots on the necks of the poor.

For Rabbi Heschel and the prophets, worship without justice was meaningless. The phrase from the prophet Amos (5:22-24) so often used by Dr. King is surrounded by the following:  "[E]ven though you offer Me your burnt offerings and cereal offerings, I will not accept them . . . . Take away from Me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. But let justice well up as waters and righteousness as a might stream." 

In January 1963, shortly after the publication of The Prophets, Rabbi Heschel and Dr. King met at a conference in Chicago. They discovered in each other a kindred spirit. Rabbi Heschel marched with Dr. King in Selma, and was an ally not just in the Civil Rights Movement, but in the Anti-War Movement, as well. Both men took the Prophetic Tradition very seriously. Indeed, it was at the core of their approaches to the intersection of faith and action.

In early 1968, Dr. King was preparing The Poor People’s Campaign, in which thousands of people would come to, and stay in, Washington to seek to turn the attention of the nation to the economic problems which kept so many in poverty. It was to be, to use today's parlance, an "Occupation." It was to be a call to America to shed its complacency regarding poverty, and to act to address the conditions that perpetuated that poverty.

It was a time both different from and similar to today. Writ large, our economy then seemed prosperous. But we were bogged down in a war overseas, and the poor were mired in poverty.

On March 25 of that year, Rabbi Heschel introduced Dr. King at the annual conference of the Rabbinical Assembly of Conservative Judaism. Rabbi Heschel’s introduction bears repeating:

“Where does moral religious leadership in America come from today? The politicians are astute, the establishment is proud, and the market place is busy. Placid, happy, merry, the people pursue their work, enjoy their leisure, and life is fair. People buy, sell, celebrate and rejoice. They fail to realize that in the midst of our affluent cities there are districts of despair, areas of distress.
“Where does God dwell in American today? Is He at home with those who are complacent, indifferent to other people’s agony, devoid of mercy? Is He not rather with the poor . . . in the slums?
“Where in America today do we hear a voice like the voice of the prophets of Israel? Martin Luther King is a sign that God has not forsaken the United States of America. . . . His presence is the hope of America. His mission is sacred, his leadership of supreme importance to every one of us.
“The situation of the poor in America is our plight, our sickness. To be deaf to their cry is to condemn ourselves.
“Martin Luther King is a voice, a vision and a way. I call upon every Jew to harken to his voice, to share his vision, to follow his way. The whole future of America will depend upon the impact and influence of Dr. King.”

At the Rabbinical Assembly, Dr. King spoke about the Poor People’s Campaign, explaining that he planned to bring thousands of poor people to Washington, who “are going to stay in Washington at least sixty days, or however long we feel it necessary.” That effort, Dr. King explained, would include “an opportunity for thousands, hundreds of thousands of people to come to Washington [and say that] we are here because we endorse the demands of the poor people who have been here all of these weeks trying to get Congress to move. . . . We are dealing with the problem of poverty. We must be sure that the people of our country will see this as a matter of justice.”

Six days after he spoke to the Rabbinical Assembly, Dr. King gave what would be his last Sunday sermon at the National Cathedral, here in Washington. He asserted that the question was not whether we could deal with the issues of poverty in America, but whether we had the will to do so. Dr. King said that “In a few weeks some of us are coming to Washington to see if the will is still alive . . . in this nation. We are coming to Washington in a poor people’s campaign. We are not coming to engage in any histrionic gesture. We are not coming to tear up Washington. We are coming to demand that the government address itself to the problem of poverty. . . . If a man doesn’t have a job or an income, he has neither life nor liberty nor the possibility of the pursuit of happiness. He merely exists. Why do we do it this way? We do it this way because it is our experience that the nation doesn’t move around questions of genuine equality for the poor and for black people until it is confronted massively, dramatically in terms of direct action.”

In closing, Dr. King recognized the difficulties of the endeavor, but said, “I will not yield to a politic of despair. I’m going to maintain hope as we come to Washington in this campaign. . . . God grant that we will be that David of truth set out against the Goliath of injustice, the Goliath of neglect, the Goliath of refusing to deal with the problems, and go on with the determination to make America the truly great America that it is called to be.”

Dr. King said these words on March 31, 1968. On April 4, he was killed by an assassin.

Dispirited, the Campaign proceeded. The first demonstrators arrived in Washington on May 12, and built the make-shift Resurrection City on the south side of the Reflecting Pool. Eventually, several thousand poor people took up residence in Resurrection City, and they were joined for seminars by many supporters, including students who had come from around the country (I arranged to have many of them housed in dorms at The George Washington University). Many good things happened at Resurrection City. I most remember sitting with a group nuns and African American teenagers listening to a retired Coast Guard veteran talk about the genealogical research he was doing, in which he was able to trace his ancestors back to West Africa; eight years later, the speaker, Alex Haley, published Roots.

But the Movement sputtered as incessant rains turned Resurrection City to mud, Senator Robert Kennedy was assassinated, and the June 19 rally, while not insubstantial, attracted far fewer people than Dr. King had hoped for, and had no real spark. By June 24, Resurrection City was a memory and the Dr. King’s last campaign, was over.

Prophets typically do not see fulfillment of their visions in their own
times. Dr. King saw the dismantling of American apartheid, but did not see the elimination of apartheid’s effects. His vision for a just America went beyond issues of racism, as shown by his vigorous opposition to the Viet Nam War and his recognition that economic injustice impacted all people.

That our nation recognizes him as a prophet says that we, at some level, recognize the truth of his vision. But this story, as the Exodus story, must be told to every generation, and must be seen not just as history, but as a lesson for the present and the future.
There are many views of what today’s Occupy Movements mean. Would Dr. King have occupied Wall Street or Washington in 2011 or 2012? At bottom, the critique of the Occupy Movements is that a small group at the top of the economic pyramid is not dealing fairly with everyone else. There is much truth to this critique. While the investor classes are doing reasonably well, even in this economic downturn, and the compensation for those at the top of major corporations skyrockets, the real wages of the vast majority of Americans who have jobs are stagnant or declining. And for those who do not have jobs, finding employment is very difficult.

In his March 31 sermon at the National Cathedral, Dr. King made it clear that there was nothing wrong with being rich but he saw that the rich in America had the “opportunity to help bridge the gulf between the haves and the have-nots. The question is whether America will do it. There is nothing new about poverty. What is new is that we now have the techniques and the resources to get rid of poverty. The real question is whether we have the will."

Given Dr. King's vision of a just and equitable society, I suspect that he would have been a supporter and even a leader of the Occupy Movement. Of course, every time in history and every movement for social change is different. So we cannot say definitively whether he would be living in a tent on Freedom Plaza or MacPherson Square.

The larger lesson that I think we need to draw from Dr. King was his insistence that we see injustice and inequality squarely, that we not be complacent, and that we act. People of good will can certainly differ on the most efficacious roles of private business enterprise and democratic government in building and maintaining a society in which all people may be able to live good lives. But as Dr. Heschel reminded us in his scholarship and as Dr. King reminded us in his words and deeds, the Prophetic Tradition demands that we never be complacent and we strive to have just roll down like waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.

*********************************

Somehow, I don't think Donald Trump understands any of this -- or if he does, he does not care.