Supreme Court Vacancy Presents Biden Opportunity

 By Mildred Robertson

President Biden stands on the precipice of perhaps the most daunting task of his administration. The nomination of the next Supreme Court Justice. With the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, he will have the opportunity to nominate a justice who will at least hold the status quo in an extremely conservative court. Biden has compiled an impressive list of highly qualified jurists to consider for the appointment.  He has pledged to nominate an African American female, and two North Carolina judges are on his shortlist.

Among those Biden is considering is North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls, an African-American civil rights attorney and educator and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and Cheri Beasley, former chief justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court. Beasley had previously served on the North Carolina Court of Appeals and as a district court judge in Cumberland County, NC. She is the presumptive nominee for the 2022 U.S. Senate race in North Carolina.

Both of these jurists are highly qualified and would provide a much-needed balance on a court that has been skewed hard right thanks to Mitch McConnell’s manipulation of the Senate rules. Just this past July the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a severe blow to the 1965 Voting Rights Act as it ruled against the Democratic National Committee in the Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee case. The court’s ruling diminished the power of federal courts to protect U.S. citizens from voting rights discrimination. It is one of the many decisions the court will address in the near future that has far-reaching implications on the daily lives of American citizens.

So as President Joe Biden prepares to make his first, and perhaps only, nomination to the court, his decision will influence this nation’s jurisprudence for years to come. Supreme Court judges receive what can amount to lifetime appointments; a constitutional design intended to ensure the Court's independence from the President and Congress.

This nomination should be a slam-dunk; at least if the Democratic Caucus can hold together all fifty of its members, and Mitch McConnell doesn’t come up with some new shenanigans. But even with a successful nomination, the court is currently wildly slanted to the right. McConnell artfully blocked President Obama from seating his Supreme Court pick, rammed through a Trump nominee accused of sexual misconduct, and confirmed an ultra-conservative female just days before a presidential election.

The next nominee to the Supreme Court is but one of the issues this administration and this congress must face. The court plays a crucial role in invalidating legislation or executive actions that conflict with the Constitution. It is designed to ensure individual rights and maintain a Constitution whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated and new situations. "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW” are words written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building. They express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States.

It seems, however, that the John Roberts Supreme Court has greater allegiance to preserving partisan ideals than to upholding the provisions of the constitution that validate our freedoms.  The Court no longer appears to hold to the concept of settled law and is forging its own conservative path on issues such as abortion and voting rights. Instead, it now allows states to chip away at the foundation of these long-held beliefs.

So as Biden contemplates his Supreme Court nominee, he must also ponder whether it is time to look at the overall makeup of the court. He and congress must determine whether additional seats must be added to the court in order to negate its current partisan bent. It may be the only way for all Americans to receive equal justice under the law from the highest court in the land.  

The Southern Strategy Revisited: Suppressing Minority Votes

 By Mildred Robertson

Well, as North Carolinians await an NC Supreme Court decision on litigation of recently gerrymandered redistricting maps they don’t know when they will get to cast their primary ballots. The Court has scheduled an expedited hearing on February 2 to hear challenges against the redrawn maps. North Carolina’s primary was already moved from March 8 to May 17 to accommodate ongoing litigation. Now Republicans want to move NC Primaries to June 7 in hopes of getting the Court’s approval to use gerrymandered maps in the 2022 mid-term elections. On January 19 the NC Senate will determine whether to schedule the Primary on June 7.

Plaintiffs presenting at the February 2 Supreme Court hearing oppose the redrawn district maps saying they are partisan gerrymandered, and therefore unconstitutional. While the trial court judges agree that the maps were drawn to give Republicans an advantage, they don’t see anything in the constitution that would prohibit it. They say partisanship is part of the political process and does not affect a person’s right to “cast” a ballot.

A major issue we face nationwide is the matter of voter nullification. It is not our desire just to have access to the ballot. We must also make sure that once a ballot is cast, it is counted. Republican legislatures across the nation have engaged in a series of efforts to not only manage who has access to the ballot box, but how each ballot is tallied once it is cast.   North Carolina is among the states working to quash the voice of minorities and progressives across this nation through gerrymander voting districts.

So that is the challenge in North Carolina. Voters must wait to see whether the Court will allow their votes to be nullified by maps that don’t reflect their will. By packing and cracking minorities and progressives into several districts (either packing these voters into several large districts or separating and diluting the number of like-minded voters in a target district), Republicans can reduce the number of districts that might deliver seats to the Democratic Party. The GOP maps are expected to give North Carolina Republicans a 10-4 or 11-3 majority in House and strong majorities in the state’s 2022 election.  

Republican Sen. Ralph Hise complains that the current schedule is an extremely short time frame that will cause unnecessary confusion and chaos. However, what is causing confusion and chaos is the Republican attempt to lessen the impact of minority and progressive voters. Note that Carolina Demography indicates that as July 2020 roughly 36% of North Carolinians are registered Democrats, with only 30 % registered Republican. The remainder of North Carolinians are unaffiliated or registered with another party.

The NC Court’s decision that the gerrymander districts do not impede access to the ballot box is just a clever way to ignore the fact that, while everyone may have the right to cast a ballot, the weight of each individual vote is skewed based on packing and cracking by the Republican majority that diminishes the impact of some ballots.

Let’s hope the North Carolina Supreme Court sees it differently.

_______________

Update January 19, 2022: Republican state lawmakers passed a bill Wednesday that would delay North Carolina’s primary election a second time, but that bill is facing a potential veto by Gov. Roy Cooper (D) as Democrats were united in their opposition to it.  --CBS17.com

America’s Checkered Voting Rights History

By Mildred Robertson

While this nation is known as a representative government for the people by the people, its actual history tells quite a different story. It appears the idea of America as a bastion of freedom is somewhat of a misnomer. As a young nation, we have spent more time denying citizens the right to self-govern than we have allowed them the freedom to participate.

For the disenfranchised masses, the battle has been ongoing throughout this nation’s history. That battle continues today as the Voting Rights legislation proposed by the Democratic Party languishes in a Congress that would prefer to exclude citizens rather than to gain full participation in the political process.

Even at its founding, this nation limited access to self-governance to white, landed males. During the Colonial and Revolutionary periods voting was restricted to property owners over the age of 21. When the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, only landowners were allowed to vote. That translates to white males. When the U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1787 no federal voting standard existed. That meant that states decided who could vote. That, again, generally meant white male landowners. When George Washington became the first president of the United States in 1789, he was elected with only 6% of the U.S. population eligible to cast a vote.  

It seems that our inclination was to deny access to the vote rather than to promote democratic inclusion. As more and more immigrants came to America, the 1790 Naturalization Law was passed; explicitly stating that only “free white” immigrants could become naturalized citizens, and thus have access to the ballot box.  It wasn’t until 1856 that voting rights were extended to white men who were not property owners, with North Carolina being the last state to remove the property ownership requirement. It was thirteen years later, under the 14th Amendment when former slaves were granted citizenship. Still, only males were allowed to vote.

Even though in 1870 federal legislation held that the vote could not be denied because of race, explicitly, voting rights were left in the hands of the states. That is when primarily Southern states began to use discriminatory tactics to enact measures such as poll taxes and literacy tests to restrict the actual ability of African Americans to register to vote.

While disenfranchised populations struggled against this lack of inclusion, they met with fierce opposition. Violence and other intimidation tactics were widely used to discourage those who might want to exercise their right to vote.

In 1872 the white suffragette Susan B. Anthony attempted to vote in the presidential election. She was arrested and brought to trial in Rochester, New York. At the same time the former slave Sojourner Truth, an advocate for justice and equality, attempted to cast a ballot in Grand Rapids. She was turned away at the polls.  

Native Americans remained among the disenfranchised until 1887. The vote was denied to Indigenous people under the pretext that they were not citizens as defined by the 14th Amendment.  The vote was also denied to people of Chinese ancestry. In 1887 Native Americans were granted the right to vote if they agreed to give up their tribal affiliation.

It was 1890 when Wyoming was admitted to statehood and became the first state to legislate voting rights for women in its constitution. Native Americans were still required to go through Naturalization in order to be considered citizens and gain voting rights. It was 1920 before the 19^th Amendment granted women the right to vote both in state and federal elections. Still excluded were Asian Indians and people of Japanese descent. While The Indian Citizenship Act granted citizenship to Native Americans, many states still made laws and policies to keep them from voting. It was 1947 before legal barriers were removed to keep Native Americans from voting. It was 1952 when those of Asian ancestry were granted citizenship rights.

Citizens in Washington D.C. only gained the right to vote in the U.S. presidential election in 1961. Yet in 2022 citizens of the District of Columbia, most of whom are African American, still do not have voting representation in Congress.

As you can see, this fight is not new. But over the years those excluded from the democratic process have had victories that move us closer to the ideal governing state that we purport to be. It is time for America to become the stronghold of freedom and self-governance it professes itself to be. It is time that Congress enact the John Lewis Voting Rights Act of 2021.

________

Source: Northern California Citizenship Project Mobilize the Immigrant Vote 2004 - Capacity Building Series

The New Year Offers America New Hope

By Mildred Robertson

Today we sit on the precipice of a new year. America has struggled through 2021 and looks with great anticipation toward a new year that holds the potential for outstanding accomplishments or dismal failure. It is a cliché, but nonetheless accurate to say “it is the best of times, it is the worst of times.”

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.” –Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

The dichotomy of America’s existence is stark.  In November of 2020, we exited perhaps the darkest time in our nation’s modern history. We survived the unhinged reign of a narcissistic sociopath who fed our worst inclinations toward selfishness and hatred. We endured the onslaught of a pandemic that stole hundreds of thousands of our friends and loved ones. We experienced a reckoning with police brutality and its roots in slavery. We saw the demise of a once-mighty Republican party that now indulges and promotes hate-filled radicals bent on destroying our democracy.

While the November 2020 elections marked the beginning of an end to this dark phase in our history, the challenges did not cease. On January 6, 2021, we experienced an uprising that challenged the very foundation of our democracy and threatened to topple our nation; an uprising led by a defeated former president and members of congress.

We are witnessing an unprecedented attack on voting rights, with Republican legislatures across the country rushing to pass legislation that will limit access to the ballot box, and limit women’s rights to control their own bodies. Countless individuals across the nation continue to refuse to take a life-saving COVID vaccination that could help bring an end to an epic worldwide pandemic.  People are dying because hospitals are foregoing or postponing life-saving treatment for non-pandemic illnesses because COVID patients have overrun the system. As Dickens said, “it was the worst of times.”

But there have been victories as well. Democrats were able to piece together support for a massive infrastructure bill that is touted to be transformative for America’s crumbling highways, bridges, rails, and other public works.  The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will expand access to high-speed internet, address climate change and advance environmental justice. It will create good-paying union jobs and will ensure that every American has access to clean drinking water.

President Joe Biden has been successful in appointing a record number of judges to federal courts across the country to counter the onslaught of conservative judges appointed during the Trump administration. While COVID has been a formidable opponent, the administration continues to promote vaccination and testing and to work with pharmaceutical companies as they develop a treatment for the prevention and/or mitigation of the COVID virus and its various manifestations.

A bipartisan committee is making slow but steady headway into the investigation of the January 6, 2021 attack on the nation’s Capitol, and the Justice Department has charged more than 700 people from more than 45 states with participating in the U.S. Capitol riot. CNN reported on December 11, 2021, that only 50 have been sentenced, with most, however, receiving lesser sentences.

So as we examine 2021, it is almost as though Charles Dickens was speaking directly about us when he wrote those storied words. But 2022 is a new chapter. There are opportunities…it is our spring of hope.

We must pass voting rights legislation to ensure that those who serve in our state and federal legislatures are a true reflection of the people’s will. Every vote counts; and every vote must be counted. This must be a top priority for President Biden and his administration.  He must pull out all the stops to ensure that he keeps his promise to the black women and men who turned out in record numbers to send him to the White House. There is nothing on his agenda that is more important than voting rights. If we don’t safeguard the vote his agenda will be the last in the foreseeable future to address the needs of American citizens, particularly minority citizens.

As we head into the primaries in preparation for the 2022 mid-terms, we must motivate the base to turn out and make their voices heard.  We must persuade them to vote despite the herculean attempt by the far-right to block them from the polls. Meanwhile, we must monitor the actions of states across the nation who are bent on predetermining the outcome of elections and minimizing the voice of the people.

While we may tire of the seemingly endless battle against COVID, the rabid radicalization of the far right, racial injustice, voter suppression, misogyny, and copious other injustices over which we fought during the past 5 years, 2022 holds hope for progress…redemption…rebirth.

It may not yet be the best of times, but the best of times is within our reach. We must, however, reach out and wrench it from those who would have us fail.

Happy New Year!

Manchin Reneges on Support for Build Back Better Legislation

 By Mildred Robertson

West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin has finally said out loud, what we all knew to be the case for months. He does not, and will not support Joe Biden’s Build Back Better (BBB) legislation. He announced today that, despite his earlier pledge to work with Biden and the Progressive Caucus to fashion a bill with which they all could live, he cannot see a way to support the legislation. 

It is clear that he never intended to support the bill which would have ensured Americans high-quality child care at an affordable cost, preschool programs for 3-4-year-olds; affordable housing, lower-cost healthcare coverage, and would close the Medicare coverage gap while reducing premiums. The bill also would have supported long-term family care needs and cut taxes for workers and their families. Had it become permanent under BBB, the Child Tax Credit increase would have become permanent, providing a tax cut of up to $1,500 for low-wage workers.

After more than five months of negotiations among Democrats, where Machin was his party’s chief obstacle to the passage of the $2 trillion social and environment bill, (down from the original $3.5 trillion at Manchin’s request), he stated today that he cannot vote to continue with this piece of legislation. “I just can’t. I’ve tried everything humanly possible. I can’t get there.” This bill that he "can't support", would have provided billions to help families with children, addressed climate change by curbing carbon emissions, and would lower prescription drug prices.

So what part, exactly, of this bill could Manchin possibly find objectionable? Helping families with children?  Addressing climate change? Lowered prescription drug costs? Tax cuts for low-wage workers? Affordable housing?  Health-care coverage?  What part, exactly?

Manchin’s position is puzzling on several levels. His response to this legislation is particularly peculiar in that the state of West Virginia is among the poorest in the nation. This legislation would have been extremely impactful for that state, as it was designed to help families cope with health and child care costs.  Recent polls indicate that Biden’s BBB spending proposal is immensely popular in deep-red West Virginia, but also just this past week Manchin had personally provided Biden a $1.85 trillion written proposal similar to the bill for which the Democrats had gained consensus in October.

Finally, Manchin has left President Biden out on a limb, as he must face off with the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which compromised on the depth and scope of the BBB, but also supported the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill on the President’s word that Manchin would support the social and environment bill when it came up. The infrastructure bill needed the support of progressive Democrats in order to pass. His pledge led the progressives to reluctantly support the infrastructure legislation without passing the BBB simultaneously.  

So Manchin’s disingenuous politicking leaves one to wonder, what kinds of levers are being pulled in the background, and who is pulling them. Manchin has direct ties to the fossil-fuel industry, and his daughter is the former CEO of drug-maker Mylan. According to a Mother Jones article published in October of this year, Manchin has received more in political donations from the oil and gas industry than any other senator; more than double the second-largest recipient. He is also the leading beneficiary of donations from the coal mining sector and has accepted more money from gas pipeline operators than any other senator. He ranks sixth among senators receiving national donations from electricity utilities.

If that is not enough to give you pause, it is alleged that his daughter Heather Bresch worked with Pfizer to keep the prices of the company’s EpiPen artificially high. Within five years of her leadership, the price of a two-pack of EpiPens was driven from $100 to above $600. Meanwhile, Manchin’s wife, Gayle, who is co-chair of the Appalachian Regional Commission and head of the National Association of State Boards of Education, lobbied states to require schools to stock epinephrine. As we examine underlying motivation, you might also note that, while Manchin blocks Democratic progress; he is busy raising funds among wealthy Republican donors, seemingly rewarding him for thwarting Democratic goals. All of these facts lead one to wonder to whom the senator is loyal...to whom he is beholden. 

It is unfortunate that the well-being of millions of Americans lies in the hands of a man who is not true to his word, and who would sacrifice ethics to promote family and pad their pockets.  I don’t know how Democrats overcome this obstacle in the short run. But in the long run, we can flood the polls in 2022 to dilute Manchin’s voice; a voice that clearly does not speak for the people.

While Manchin is not up for election in 2022, there are many seats that will need to be filled. We must fill them with statesmen and women who care more about the people than they do the position and the power. We need to elect citizen-politicians who believe in service to their electorate, not performance politics. We need to quiet the voice of folk like Joe Manchin who would stand in the way of progress so that this nation can move forward and the people can be heard.  

Kamala Harris Media Coverage: Just or Unjust?

 By Mildred Robertson

There is a narrative about Kamala Harris that is vaguely reminiscent of the kinds of articles we used to see about Hillary Clinton. I cannot come to her defense, since I don't know the woman. But I do know the tactics of the establishment to take down powerful women. You see, Harris was my first choice for president. I was pleased when Biden picked her as vice president, and have looked forward to the opportunity to see her run for the top spot again.

So, I want to know if this is just the male-dominated establishment trying to maintain the status quo, or is there some basis for the attacks Harris has had to endure. Articles indicate that she doesn't do the work, but holds her staff responsible for her unpreparedness--Prove it.

They say she is a bully. Why? How? Is she demanding effective, efficient performance, or is she just being mean? Many times, those attributes that people applaud in men, are seen as mean-spirited, intimidating, or tyrannical in women. 

She has not been prominent on the national stage since she became vice president. No vice president ever is. It is, for the most part, a ceremonial job. So it is difficult for the public to measure her strengths and weaknesses accurately because they are seldom on public display. Her job, generally, is to stand behind the president and smile. She doesn’t have policies to implement, because she must implement Biden’s policies. She cannot publicly vocalize how she would have handled a situation differently from the president. Again, that is not her job and there would be a whole other narrative in the media about her trying to undercut the president.

If Harris is not prepared to lead at this level, then there should be facts to support that allegation. If you don't have the facts, I don't want to hear it.

Justice in America; It’s Complicated

Mildred Robertson

According to civil rights leader Dr. William Barber, the outcome of two racially tinged trials in America with divergent outcomes is, well to say it simply, “complicated.” Barber was referring to the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict in Kenosha WI, and the Ahmaud Arbery trial in Georgia.

While a predominantly white jury with just one black seated in the Georgia case took hours to find guilty three white vigilantes who stalked and killed 25-year-old Arbery as he jogged down a public street; a white jury in Wisconsin found Kyle Rittenhouse innocent of injuring one and murdering 2 Black Lives Matter protestors. Rittenhouse claimed self-defense despite coming to the protest armed with an AR 15, loaded with 30 rounds of hollow-point bullets. The first man he shot was unarmed. He was then pursued by a man wielding his skateboard, and another who had a handgun. Rittenhouse shot and killed one of his pursuers and injured the other.

The Rittenhouse verdict, while disappointing, surprised no one. The same cannot be said of the Arbery trial where a jury consisting of one black and 11 white jurors took little time to come back with a precise verdict that spoke directly to the offenses of each of the three defendants on trial. While defense lawyers pandered to what they hoped would be a racist jury, the prosecutor laid out a roadmap of facts that led to a definitive guilty verdict for all three of the men charged.

One trial stood as an example of what jurisprudence in America should be, while the other held the systems glaring failures up to the light. One trial was based on facts and evidence, while the other was based on vigilante justice.

The judge in the Rittenhouse trial showed a bias toward the defendant from an initial pretrial motion to determine whether those slain on the streets of Kenosha could be referred to as victims; to the point where he sat with the defendant as the jury viewed presentations by the attorneys. Throughout the trial, the judge scolded, yelled at, and berated the prosecuting attorney, blocking any opportunity he took to humanize Rittenhouse’s victims or to show he was the aggressor.

In contrast, the Arbery trial judge showed no signs of bias for or against the defendants. But that trial did not occur without issues of prejudicial behavior by the justice system. First, it was months after he was shot down in the streets before Arbery’s attackers were even arrested. The first call the shooter made was to District Attorney Jackie Johnson; now indicted for her actions. She told him to go home and wash his hands. Arbery’s attackers were arrested after a video of the encounter was released to the public. Linda Dunikoski the prosecutor who so eloquently tried the case was brought in from Cobb County. She successfully prosecuted the case, demolishing the defendant’s attempt to establish self-defense. All three of Arbery’s assailants are expected to spend the rest of their lives in prison, and still face federal charges for his murder that could result in additional life sentences.

The sentencing in the Arbery case is appropriate to deter others who might take similar actions in the future. Furthermore, Georgia has changed its laws to make it clearer when it would be legal to make a citizen’s arrest. Arbery’s mother said she thought she would never see this day but could look at the empty seat around her Thanksgiving table knowing that her prayers have been answered and that Ahmaud can now rest in peace.

While Ahmaud may now be able to rest, we cannot. These two disparate outcomes show the imbalance in the American justice system. One should not be afforded justice based on the luck of the draw in a jury pool, defense lawyer or prosecutor, or judge. Until these disparities are addressed, volatile instances of racial violence will continue to occur around this nation. Until America admits the role race plays in our criminal justice system, the phrase “Liberty and Justice for All,” is just words. 

In America race colors how the system views the crime; sometimes even determining that no crime was committed, as in the Rittenhouse case. You see, it’s complicated.