Tag Meryl Kornfield

You know you’re in trouble when one candidate for president encourages violence as a response to free speech and honest journalism, and some people cheer

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

Right after the U.S. Constitution established the three branches of government to provide checks and balances it immediately identified the next most important protections for American society: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”  In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers meant to make it clear that the people enjoyed freedom to live their lives on their own terms (within limits), and that the people (as a whole) were the superiors of the servants who staffed the government.  The people are free to say what’s on their mind and to share that information with others, and to call into question the words and ideas of their chosen and aspiring leaders.  And free to do so without retribution from the government.

Our most recent former president is hardly the first politician to have an adversarial relationship with American journalists; no president or any other government official enjoys being called out for flat-out lying or for bending the truth to his or her benefit.  But most don’t carry a crazy expectation that the free press is there to merely transcribe their words for posterity: he’s the only one I can remember who has, seemingly quite seriously, called for violence against anyone who criticizes him or fact-checks what he says.

Donald Trump told a crowd on Sunday that he wouldn’t mind if someone shot at the news media present at his rally here, escalating his violent rhetoric at one of his closing campaign events where he repeatedly veered off-message.

(snip)

Trump’s latest comments about the media underscored his embrace of violent language, days after he received blowback for suggesting former Republican congresswoman Liz Cheney would not be such a “war hawk” if she went into combat and had guns “trained on her face.”

(snip)

Trump has also used violent language for hecklers at his rallies. In 2016, after someone interrupted a Las Vegas rally, Trump told the crowd: “Here’s a guy throwing punches, nasty as hell, screaming at everybody else,” then added, “I’d like to punch him in the face.”

In Iowa during the same campaign, he encouraged supporters to “knock the crap” out of potential hecklers. And last month, at a California rally, Trump suggested that a heckler would later get “the hell knocked out of her.”

Houston Chronicle columnist Chris Tomlinson puts a finer point on the problem:

More than 100 times since 2022, Trump has threatened to punish people who disagree with him, according to a tally by National Public Radio. He calls journalists the “enemy of the people,” anyone who disagrees with him “evil” and says critics are an “enemy within” more dangerous to the nation than Russian President Vladimir Putin or Chinese President Xi Jinping.

(snip)

“I think the bigger problem are the people from within. We have some very bad people. We have some sick people,” Trump told Fox’s Sunday Morning Futures. “It should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by the National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”

The MILITARY used to “handle” his internal enemies?  Just what the hell does that actually mean?  Well, according to his supporters and his campaign, it’s just campaign rhetoric.

Supporters assure me that we have nothing to fear from another Trump presidency. The Republican nominee is only engaging in campaign hyperbole; he will not execute any of these plans.

I’m unsure how you vote for a candidate whose comments the public should not take seriously. (emphasis added) If we shouldn’t believe Trump will put millions of immigrants in camps and jail his opponents, then why should we think he will impose tariffs and promote tax cuts?

What’s serious, and what’s balderdash?

No other candidate in American history has run for office expecting voters to psychically divine his or her authentic policies. Conservatives excoriate Kamala Harris and Tim Walz if they put one word out of place, but they excuse everything Trump says or does.

I don’t object when people who are dissatisfied with the way the country is being run turn to a candidate who I disagree with, even when I disagree on a long list of topics.  I try not to demonize my fellow citizens who make a different choice from me; that is their right, and it doesn’t make them evil.  I do hope that all Americans look at the full picture in considering which candidate to support, and I don’t mean looking for a candidate with whom you agree on every single thing…hard to believe that’s possible, for any of us.  That full picture means considering policy positions, and your perception of the candidate’s belief in the fundamental norms of American society and the American system of government.  And of their basic, inherent honesty.  And wondering, are they in it for America or are they running to advance themselves…or to be able to corruptly abuse the system to keep themselves out of prison?

Many of the Republicans who have endorsed Kamala Harris have made plain in doing so that they do not agree with her, politically, on much of anything.  Nevertheless, their concern for the full picture and their knowledge of this Republican candidate have led them to choose against their party this time.

“I tell you, I have never voted for a Democrat, but this year, I am proudly casting my vote for Vice President Kamala Harris,” [Liz] Cheney said at a Harris campaign event in Ripon, Wisconsin. In an attempt to persuade swing voters, she pointed toward former President Donald Trump’s actions on January 6, declaring that anyone “who would do these things can never be trusted with power again.”

“Donald Trump was willing to sacrifice our Capitol, to allow law enforcement officers to be beaten and brutalized in his name, and to violate the law and the Constitution in order to seize power for himself,” Cheney said as the event’s audience cheered. “I don’t care if you are a Democrat or Republican or an independent, that is depravity and we must never become numb to it.”

wpnan241101

Fundamental dishonesty

Pat Ryan 1 Comment

It wasn’t a “driveway moment” because I wasn’t in my driveway, I wasn’t sitting in the car listening to the radio to hear the end of a story that had sucked me in.  No, I was still on the road headed home from the grocery store when I heard two words that broke through and provided some clarity of mind, finally, amid the onslaught of distressing rulings from the Supreme Court of the United States.

Just a week ago, the court’s six “conservative” justices ruled that a program in Maine that subsidizes tuition for certain private schools in rural areas of the state cannot exclude religious private schools from the program.  Two days later the same six found that a New York law placing strict limits on carrying guns in public violates the Second Amendment.  And the day after that, those same six members not only found that a Mississippi ban on abortions after just 15 weeks was constitutional, they went the extra step and overturned the nearly 50-year old precedent of their own court that established a woman’s right to an abortion.

The separation of church and state.  The rights to privacy, and to safety, individual liberty, and self-determination.  The targets of this Supreme Court and the “conservative” movement in general couldn’t be clearer.  With each new Republican-appointed justice on the court, and each new ruling by the new majority, they demonstrate their mission to remake America as a paradigm of Christian nationalism.  It seems clear that the decades-long mission to destroy the secular society that has grown up since World War II just can’t be denied, not even when the inconvenience of the facts gets in the way.

It was Nina Totenberg on the radio reporting on the ruling in favor of the high school coach who insisted on holding a prayer circle at midfield after football games, and Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion scolded the school district:

“Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a personal religious observance, based on a mistaken view that it has a duty to suppress religious observances even as it allows comparable secular speech. The Constitution neither mandates nor tolerates that kind of discrimination. Mr. Kennedy is entitled to summary judgment on his religious exercise and free speech claims,” Gorsuch wrote.

The three dissenters said that account of the facts blinkered reality (emphasis added). Writing for the three liberals, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that Kennedy’s prayer was neither private speech, nor benign. She pointed to the fact that the coach conducted a media blitz leading ultimately to the field being stormed and students being knocked down. And she said “schools face a higher risk of unconstitutionally ‘coerc[ing] … support or participat[ion] in religion or its exercise’ than other government entities.”

“This decision does a disservice to schools and the young citizens they serve, as well as to our Nation’s longstanding commitment to the separation of church and state,” Sotomayor wrote. “Today’s decision elevates the rights of a school coach who voluntarily accepted public employment, over the rights of students required to attend public schools and who may feel obligated to join in prayer.” In doing so, Sotomayor claims, the court gives “short shrift” to the constitutions ban on state entanglement with religion.

University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock usually files briefs siding with religion advocates. But not in this case. He called Monday’s ruling, “fundamentally dishonest” and pointed to the third sentence of the Gorsuch opinion, which characterizes coach Kennedy’s conduct as “quiet isolated prayers,” stating, “They weren’t quiet and they weren’t isolated. They were leading the students in prayer, and to say that’s okay undermines all the school prayer cases.” By that he means Supreme Court decisions barring teacher- or student-led prayers in public school classrooms, and ceremonies like graduation.

It was like a fire alarm went off inside my head: “fundamentally dishonest.”

Yes—the fundamental dishonesty of these justices, and of the Christian religious extremists who have been fighting the secularization of American society for generations!  They have had a winking understanding with a certain segment of America: anything is permissible—the end justifies the means—when it comes to returning America to be the Christian country we all “know” it should be, including lying under oath in order to gain positions of power.  Don’t believe me?  Look at the video of the confirmation hearings over the years of the “conservative” justices now on the court: is it just a coincidence that when the Senate Judiciary Committees asked these nominees about Roe v. Wade, these individuals had the same answer, in virtually the same words, words meant to leave the impression that they believed in the doctrine of stare decisis in general and specifically for this case?  I think not.

In a concurring opinion on Dobbs, Justice Clarence Thomas says the quiet part out loud about using the wedge they perfected in overturning Roe to take aim at other precedents that guarantee other rights to Americans.

“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote on Page 119 of the opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, also referring to the rulings that legalized same-sex relationships and marriage equality, respectively. “Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous’ … we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”

Just coincidence, right, that the other cases on his mind are the ones that guaranteed the rights to same-sex marriage, and same-sex sex, and the use of birth control.  BIRTH CONTROL!?  He wants to return to a time when the use of birth control by married couples in the privacy of their own home could be and was prohibited by states?  Who can even imagine such a thing?

I know who…so do you.  And I don’t take any comfort—at all—in the protestation from the other five “conservative” justices that “[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”  When there is fundamental dishonesty, I have doubts.