Milquetoast Joe Donnelly

To parrot what Sheila Kennedy wrote the other day, I think that Joe Donnelly is a horrible centrist sellout. I think that so many of his positions are cowardly, and I rank him down with Evan Bayh as a finger-in-the-air politico.

I will vote for him anyway, even if I have to hold my nose.

In light of that preface, I turn to a different but related topic: whether he should vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh.

I think that he should not.

I actually wrote to the Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette recently about this. My point, then and now, is that there is not a single Republican out there who is (a) aware of who Brett Kavanaugh is AND (b) will be swayed to vote for Joe Donnelly and against Mike Braun. Contrarily, I believe that there are plenty of progressives (whether they count themselves as Democrats or not) who will stay home if Sen. Donnelly votes to confirm Brett Kavanaugh. After all, if Sen. Donnelly votes like a Republican when it counts, why bother to campaign/canvass/fundraise for him? Why not just let the few remaining governing positions in Indiana go to Republicans if all of the Indiana Democrats are going to act like Republicans when the rubber hits the road anyway?

In light of that, I present this from Abdul Hakeem Shabaz (he used to be "Abdul in the Morning" but I think the plug got pulled on that):

A new poll of the U.S. Senate race gives Democrat Joe Donnelly a 12-point lead over Republican Mike Braun, but it changes depending on whether he votes to confirm Brett Cavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court.

The poll of more than 1,400 likely voters, conducted by The Trafalgar Group, gives Donnelly a lead of 50.8 to 38.6 over Braun.  Ten percent are undecided.

However, that lead drops to 39.4 to 38.5 if Donnelly votes for the confirmation.  And if Donnelly votes against the confirmation,  his lead only drops to 45-38.

The number of undecided voters also grows to 22 percent if Donnelly votes yes; 16 percent if he votes no.

The poll was taken from July 31 to August 7.

It has a margin of error of +/- 2.6 percent.

Of course, a poll taken 3+ months before an election, combined with $3, is worth approximately $3 (ask Hillary Clinton). Nonetheless, I note that Sen. Donnelly's lead over Mike Braun drops more if he votes to confirm Brett Kavanaugh than if he votes not to. (I also note that Abdul mis-spells Kavanaugh's name, but who really cares?)

So, to that end, Sen. Donnelly, I implore you to vote against Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation. I don't like that Supreme Court nominations are political. That doesn't mean that they aren't. Senators often have to take tough votes; sometimes right before an election. It seems to me that someone who represents me in a legislature should be willing to vote his conscience, even if it costs him an election.

Schadenfreude

Schadenfreude (N): pleasure derived from another's misfortune

What gives me schadenfreude? This:

In court filings and public statements, the NRA says that a campaign by Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York and the state’s Department of Financial Services has cost it “tens of millions of dollars” and left it scrambling to find basic banking services and essential corporate liability coverage. Cuomo’s reaction has been gleeful. He has called on other states to follow his lead in putting firms on notice of the risks of working with the NRA, and says he’ll send “thoughts and prayers” if the gun group does actually suffer the downfall it says it fears.

While I am generally not a fan of Andrew "Milquetoast" Cuomo, I can't help but chuckle at his "thoughts and prayers" comment, as countless Americans have only gotten "thoughts and prayers" when their loved ones are slaughtered by [checks notes] "bad guys with guns." 

Hard Cases & Bad Law

If someone wants to worship God in accordance with Catholic beliefs, no problem.

If someone wants to marry a person of the same sex in accordance with his/her affection and preference, no problem.

If someone wants to run a company in accordance with his/her religious values, no problem.

The problems arise when these three situations (and countless others) intersect. For example, if the Catholic works at a law firm and refuses to do work on a divorce case, what then? If a Catholic owns a child care center and does not want his/her employees to publicly "flaunt" their homosexuality, does that mean that all employees have to live in "the closet" or risk losing their jobs?

This is the genesis of the phrase, "Hard cases make bad laws." For example, we certainly have the right to wear t-shirts with statements on them, but does a student have the right to wear a "Bong Hits for Jesus" t-shirt, to school? The Supreme Court said yes, but does that mean that the student should wear that shirt?

I ramble all of this in light of a story I read recently in the Indianapolis Star. Here are some excerpts:

Students, parents and alumni are rallying behind a Roncalli High School guidance counselor who they say may be fired after administrators found out she was married to a woman.

The south-side Catholic school and Archdiocese of Indianapolis defended their position regarding Shelly Fitzgerald after her supporters began criticizing the school on social media over the weekend.

"As role models for students, the personal conduct of every teacher, guidance counselor and administrator and staff member, both at school and away from school, must convey and be supportive of the teachings of the Catholic Church," Roncalli officials posted on the school's official Facebook page Sunday night.

This has implications galore. For starters, if the counselor can't be fired, is that not an infringement on Roncalli's First Amendment rights? If the counselor can be fired, isn't that an infringement on the counselor's 14th Amendment substantive due process rights, particularly given that Roncalli receives public money?

As the title says, hard cases make bad laws. I don't think that the guidance counselor should be fired, as a function of what is right and wrong. I'm not sure as to whether the counselor can be fired, as a function of what is legal.

I would, however, advise Roncalli to tread lightly. While Indiana, presently, is shoveling public money to religious schools, the political worm always turns, particularly when you taunt fate and encourage the worm to turn. How many more schools doing something like this would eventually result in a revolt against the idea of giving our tax money to schools that aren't accountable to our constitution? If religious institutions can't follow our laws, in accordance with their stated religious mission, perhaps we shouldn't expect them to . . . perhaps we shouldn't fund them.

Of course, on the other hand, if Roncalli is forced to hire and retain employees who it sees as antithetical to its mission, how long before it and other schools like it turn their back on voucher programs and essentially say, "There are too many strings attached. We'll go back to the old way of doing things."

Again, hard cases make bad laws. When you mix the public and private sectors, it is really important to properly delineate between those functions that are governmental functions (and thus subject to all of the laws, regulations, and (yes) the Constitution, and those functions that are non-governmental.

On the Awfulness that is Nancy Pelosi

I don't think my reader(s) have any misunderstanding as to where my political sensibilities lie. However, I too am kind of sick and tired of Nancy Pelosi. Given that the Democratic Party styles itself as the young, the working class, and minorities, it is a bit disingenuous to have a party leadership that is nearly uniformly white, septuagenarian, and wealthy. However, I have to hand it to Nancy Pelosi that, as a politician and a member of leadership, she has been very effective at keeping her caucus unified (mostly) and in line (mostly), and raising money for candidates.

She has also been remarkably free of scandal, particularly given the GOP demonization of her and its ability to manufacture scandals out of thin air (Emails! Benghazi!).

How does she compare with recent GOP leaders in the house?

• Newt Gingrich - shut down government, impeached Bill Clinton for having an affair while having an affair (as his wife lie dying of cancer);
• Dennis Hastert - molested teenage boys
• Paul Ryan - no real scandal, but poses as a deficit hawk and his sole achievement as Speaker is to explode the budge deficit during an ostensibly "good" economy
• Tom DeLay - convicted of money laundering
• John Boehner - uses his position as congressional leader to stifle any reformation of nation's marijuana laws, retires, promptly takes a seat on the board of a medical marijuana manufacturing company

As I said, I am a bit tired of Nancy Pelosi and would like to see new Democratic leadership. (To that point, I'm a bit tired of Ann DeLaney as well and would like to see some new Democratic leadership in Indiana . . . perhaps it could be something "other" than a permanent super-minority party).

However, given Rep. Pelosi's counterparts, she doesn't look all that bad.

About that Curtis Hill

Not only is he a creepy groper, drug warrior, and the worst kind of attorney (prosecutor), he also wastes our money on stupid partisan snipe hunts:

Last month, judge Sarah Evans Barker approved a consent decree reached by plaintiffs Common Cause Indiana and the Indianapolis NAACP and the defendant, the Marion County Election Board.

In a filing Tuesday, the attorney general argued that the consent decree cannot replace an election board's legal requirement to decide unanimously to create in-person early voting sites.

 For those following at home, the backdrop to this is that state law requires unanimity among the members of a county election board in order to open up new voting sites. The Marion County election board has consistently lacked such unanimity, as the Republican members of such board have repeatedly and consistently refused to agree to open new voting sites . . . seemingly part of the ongoing project to protect against voter fraud discourage voting.

Anyway, the county election board got sued. They eventually settled and agreed to put new voting sites in. Of course, Mr. AG had to come along and do anything he could to help his team distract from his own problems.

Marion County’s decision to open additional voting centers is being contested by Attorney General Curtis Hill, but the Marion County Election Board disputes his assertion that the agreement to offer more early voting sites is contrary to Indiana law or that the board lacked a unanimous vote.

A consent decree settling a lawsuit over access to early voting was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in mid-July in Common Cause Indiana et al. v. Marion County Election Board, 1:17-cv-1388.

Hill, on behalf of the state, is challenging the consent decree that opens additional satellite voting centers in Marion County for the 2018 general election. He filed a motion Tuesday asking the federal court to withdraw the agreement. The board last month announced six early-voting sites around Indianapolis would be open in time for November’s mid-term election.

OK. What is Mr. Hill's reasoning for bringing a lawsuit, paid for by the taxpayers of Indiana, whose general purpose is to prevent those same taxpayers from being able to vote (without waiting in line for what tends to be, by most estimates, "forever")?

Hill’s office also argued “it is not in the public interest for a federal court to enter, enforce, and monitor a consent decree that dictates the operation of state-run elections.” Further, the AG’s office said the public interest is “jeopardized by the removal of (Defendant Election Board’s) minority leverage in the political process.”

You know, the candor of that is quite surprising. What is the AG talking about when he mentions "minority leverage in the political process?" Well, that's just what was mentioned above: Republicans wanted to make sure that voting remained inconvenient in Indianapolis, presumably to drive down turnout of what is viewed as a "liberal" electorate. You will note that polling places in rural locales far outnumber, on a per-capita basis, those in liberal urban locales.

Anyway, as to the two objections, I will let the Article III Judge Sarah Evans Barker have the honors:

The State argues that the consent decree is contrary both to state law as well as the public interest. Neither objection has merit.

That is nice judge speak for, "Get the hell out of my courtroom you clown." However, at least we can rest assured that, at least for a few minutes, AG Hill wasn't ass-grabbing all over downtown, as is rumored to be his style.

 

NO COLLUSION

Collude (v): come to a secret understanding for a harmful purpose; conspire.

As we know, "collusion" is the noun form of the verb "collude." We also know that our president has insisted repeatedly that there was NO COLLUSION (he always seems to go all-caps for that assertion).

Because I can't get the tweet to properly embed, I will just quote it:

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!

OK. Let's back up a bit.

I thought the first line was "the meeting never happened." Let's just take a look at the timeline and the shifting company storyline:

• July 8, 2017 -  The meeting was about adopting Russian Children
• July 9, 2017 - OK, so they suggested to us that maybe they had some information implying that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party were being funded by Russia; nothing came of it and the suggestion was vague all along
• July 12, 2017 - Jay Sekulow (one of the most despicable people in America, he also happens to be one of Trump's lawyers), responding to a story from the day before that President Trump had signed off on the July 8 statement, categorically denies that President Trump had anything to do with the original statement. Sekulow repeats this claim on July 16, 2017, on Meet the Press.
• July 31, 2017 - Washington Post reports that President Trump personally dictated the July 8 statement
• August 1, 2017 - President Trump (via his Press Secretary) concedes that President Trump "weighed in" on the statement but did not dictate it
• January 29, 2018 - Jay Sekulow admits in a letter to Special Counsel Robert Mueller that President Trump did dictate Don Jr.'s statement
• June 2, 2018 - The NY Times publishes the January 29 letter
• June 3, 2018 - Rudy Giuliani (a walking disaster of a "lawyer" if ever there was one) claims that Sekulow was uninformed in June 2017 when he claimed that the President was uninvolved in Don Jr.'s initial statement
• June 4, 2018 - President Trump's Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders refuses to answer questions as to whether he dictated the letter
• July 26, 2018 - Michael Cohen (President Trump's longtime personal attorney and notorious liar) claims that the President had foreknowledge of the meeting and signed off on it
• August 5, 2018 - "My son went to this meeting to receive intelligence on Hillary Clinton."

So, in sum, we know the following about the infamous Russia Meeting:

1. They knew they would be meeting with representatives of the Russian state
2. They knew they were being offered Russian state intelligence
3. They intended to use Russian intelligence offered by Russian agents against an American opponent
4. They did not alert the FBI to any of this

Look, I'm not an expert in national security law by any means and I'm trying really hard not to just be a partisan liberal here. However, I think that maybe we just need to step back and ask ourselves whether we've gone through the looking glass here. I mean, do we really have to ask whether aiding and abetting foreign meddling in American elections is OK?

"Socialism" - Defined Down

I have noted that the more people decry attempts to moderate the extremes of capitalism as "socialism," the more people will become open to the concept. If "socialism" means gulags, count me out. If it means affordable healthcare and good schools for my kids, it doesn't seem so bad.

Recently, Paul Krugman made that precise point in the New York Times:

for decades the right has tried to shout down any attempt to sand down some of the rough edges of capitalism, whether through health guarantees, income supports, or anything else, by yelling “socialism.” Sooner or later people were bound to say that if any attempt to make our system less harsh is socialism, well, they’re socialists.

The truth is that there are hardly any people in the U.S. who want the government to seize the means of production, or even the economy’s commanding heights. What they want is social democracy – the kinds of basic guarantees of health care, protection against poverty, etc., that almost every other advanced country provides.

Read the entire thing here. 

Gambling & Motorsports

The Supreme Court recently ruled that the national ban on sports gambling, with the exception of Nevada, is unconstitutional.

OK.

I am not a gambler, so it really has little effect on me. I have heard the arguments that casinos and gambling outfits are deleterious to communities, but I am skeptical. As a general rule, when it comes to local activity, I prefer to let people do what they want to do. If they want to gamble, then they can gamble. I do hope that people bet with money they can afford to lose, but I say the same thing about people running up bar tabs, credit card debt, etc.

What I wonder about, though, is what effect that will have on motorsports, particularly the Indy 500. How much would it add to the fan experience if you could go and place bets, not only on the winner but also first to wreck, first to pit, most laps led, top-5 finishers, trifecta, slowest finisher, top speed, etc.

I don't have hard numbers to back it up, but I am given to understand that outside of the 500, IndyCar is having financial problems. I have also heard many rumors that the 500 itself is experiencing generally declining attendance. As I said, this is what I've heard, not what I've researched.

Anyway, perhaps auto racing will have somewhat of a renaissance because of this. What do you think?

Why Healthcare Will be Nationalized

This:

 As Jonathan Chait writes, “having spent years insisting they had an army of wonks who could design a better alternative to the Obamacare ‘train wreck,’ the Republican plan of attack has dissolved into a rearguard sabotage campaign with no pretense of doing anything to help the poor and sick afford medical care.”

The simple fact is that though they don’t like to admit it, they just disagree with the moral premise that the government has an obligation to ensure that people get the health care they need. And that’s going to mean doing it the old-fashioned way — by enrolling as many people as possible, including, ultimately, everyone in government programs that keep operating unless Congress actually repeals them.

The notion of a compromise strategy that would allow Democrats to achieve their basic goals while being flexible and industry-friendly with the means was appealing on a number of levels, but it depended fundamentally on the notion that Republicans would treat such a compromise as stable. The reality is they won’t, so Democrats will have to choose — either abandon a generations-long principle (which isn’t going to happen) or move forward into the single-payer future.

Note to self: compromises only work if the other side is willing to stick to the deal. If they don't, you go all in. This is no different than a settlement conference. If I demand $50,000 to settle during a settlement conference, and that is my last demand, you can bet your bottom dollar that, if the matter doesn't settle, I'm asking the jury for at least $150,000. The same goes in politics. Walk away from the deal at your own peril; sooner or later, the worm always turns.

Brett Kavanaugh - What We Know

I have been scolded by a commenter for (paraphrasing) presuming that I know how Judge Kavanaugh will rule on issues that come before him. This scold is no more than a repeat of a partisan talking point. "We can't possibly know how Judge Kavanaugh will rule because every case that comes before him will be different, and he will reach his own conclusions, i.e. he's just calling balls and strikes."

Spare me.

when SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau was killed by a whale that mauled her and then pulled her underwater until she drowned — the third time this particular whale killed someone while in captivity — Chief Judge Garland joined an opinion rejecting SeaWorld’s argument that “working with killer whales was not a recognized hazard because its training and safety program adequately controlled the risk.” Again, their argument was that working with killer whales was not a recognized risk. And this particular killer whale was a repeat offender.

Judge Kavanaugh, meanwhile, wrote a dissenting opinion claiming that the Department of Labor cannot protect whale trainers from dangerous workplaces, because that would be like regulating “tackling in the NFL or speeding in NASCAR.”

I guess we can kind of presume where his sympathies lie in cases that involve employment hazards.

Also, in Garza v. Hargan, Garland voted in favor of a woman that the Trump administration literally held prisoner to prevent her from obtaining an abortion. Kavanaugh dissented in that case too.

Of course, this case makes me think that I can presume where Judge Kavanaugh's heart is on reproductive rights vs. power of the government cases.

Oh, and Kavanaugh frequently attacks the EPA’s efforts to protect the environment, while Garland takes a much lighter hand with federal agencies.

Once again, Judge Kavanaugh has literally written, for himself (through his clerks) what I know about him. 

I also know this:

Q: Judge Kavanaugh, thank you for coming today. My name is Chris Johnswick (ph). I just had a question for you. You spoke about the chief justice’s role in both Roe and Casey. I wonder if you could elaborate as what would you say his biggest legacy is for us. You agreed with his dissent in those opinions.

JUDGE KAVANAUGH: As I said, he was not successful in convincing the other members of the Court to his position there. But, more broadly, in subsequent due process, or unenumerated rights cases more generally, he did write the Glucksberg opinion that prevents a general role for the Court in creating new social rights. So I don’t know if I can improve upon just that bare description of what he did. He clearly wanted to overrule Roe and Casey and did not have the votes. That’s where it was left. So it did not deter him or prevent the Court from reaching the result it reached in the later Glucksberg cases, as I mentioned, and that adopts a general framework for creation of new social rights that still applies today.  

For the record, the Glucksberg opinion, as Judge Kavanaugh states, "prevents a general role for the Court in creating new (unenumerated, specifically, in the Constitution) social rights." So, I for one will not be taking the bait to merely judge Judge Kavanaugh on his sterling resume; his substantive opinions about the law, which he has held for years and will continue to hole, are important and worth considering.

What is "Lochner" all about?

I talk about the Lochner era sometimes as though everyone else knows what I'm talking about. It occurs to me that perhaps I'm making an unwarranted assumption, so today's post will more or less clarify what that means.

First off, Lochner v. N.Y. was a 1905 Supreme Court case. In a nutshell, the state of New York had passed a law stating that no baker could work more than 6 days per week, 10 hours per day, or something similar to that. Mind you, this was in an era where the bakers worked in large industrial bakeries, often 12 hours/day 7 days/week. The State of New York decided that, for a variety of reasons, they wanted to limit how much a person could be required to work. Maybe they thought it was good public policy to allow workers to spend time with their families; go to church; etc. Maybe they thought it would help their economy by forcing the bakeries to hire more bakers. Maybe they thought it would be better for safety. Regardless, the State of New York made that decision.

Someone named Lochner decided to challenge the law's constitutionality on the grounds that it violated his right to contract and deprived him of his fundamental economic liberty. Recall that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the passage of laws that impair the obligations of contracts. (Art. I, Sec. 10). Recall also that the 5th and 14th Amendments guarantee due process under the law.

The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately sided with Lochner and invalidated New York's' law. As such, it set a precedent that, more or less, all workplace safety and labor regulations would be determined to be unconstitutional. The Lochner era that followed is widely considered to have lasted into the New Deal, when it was overturned.

There are many of us, myself very much included, who believe that this nation is slowly but surely heading down that path again, where workplace protections and laws designed to even the bargaining power between workers and employers are deemed to be unconstitutional infringements on the corporations' rights to due process under the law. Of course, the modern conservatives on the court (every bit the activists as the Lochner era conservatives) use the 1st Amendment instead of the contracts clause and the 5th/14th. You can see the seeds of that in the recent Janus decision: right to free speech means that you have the right not to associate with a union that is compelled by law to represent your interests.

When I say that Justice Gorsuch is a dangerous, activist, retrograde judge, I have reasons. When I say the same about Clarence Thomas, I have reasons.

Random Information, Apropos of Nothing

This is part of Article I of the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon:

Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:

1. Making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
2. Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
3. Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
4. Interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;
5. Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;
6. Endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;
7. Disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;
8. Making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or
9. Endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Not that any of this is relevant to the present moment. Continuing in the irrelevant articles of history, here is a copy of the Articles of Impeachment against Bill Clinton:

Article I: States that in his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice, in that William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. States that contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury.

Article II: States that in his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice in that William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony as part of a Federal civil rights action brought against him.

Article III: States that in his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.

Article IV: States that using the powers and influence of the office of President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has engaged in conduct that resulted in misuse and abuse of his high office, impaired the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, and contravened the authority of the legislative branch and the truth seeking purpose of a coordinate investigative proceeding, in that, as President, William Jefferson Clinton refused and failed to respond to certain written requests for admission and willfully made perjurious, false, and misleading sworn statements in response to certain written requests for admission propounded to him as part of the impeachment inquiry authorized by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States. States that William Jefferson Clinton, in refusing and failing to respond and in making perjurious, false and misleading statements, assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives and exhibited contempt for the inquiry.

The highlights in both (other than the Article headings) are mine.

I post this information so that we have primary source evidence as to the nature of the last two impeachments. Personally, I don't think that this country needs another impeachment. However, if/when "The Don" has articles of impeachment brought against him, or if such measures enter the public discussion, we should have a historical backdrop for same. As is perfectly clear, I disagree with President Trump. However, pursuing policy with which I disagree is not an impeachable offense. Further, as I stated time and again during the Obama administration, "unconstitutional" (and "liberalism" for that matter) is not analogous to "stuff I disagree with."

A Humble Reminder ...

... that life is precious and not to be taken for granted. I feel like I hear these stories more than most people do (likely by virtue of my livelihood), but they never cease to shake me up:

An Indianapolis man’s conviction for causing the death of his infant daughter will stand after the Indiana Court of Appeals rejected his argument that the evidence of him placing a pillow over the baby should not have been admitted at trial because he never affirmatively said her death was an accident.

Jeffrey Fairbanks was charged with murder and Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent resulting the death of his infant daughter, Janna. He told Indianapolis police he had placed a pillow over Janna’s face because she was crying but he then quickly removed the pillow and fed her. A short time later, he said, he and the baby fell asleep but when he awoke, she was dead.

The state filed notice of intent to admit 404(b) evidence that Fairbanks had placed a pillow over Janna’s face on at least two prior occasions. Also the state wanted to admit statements from Janna’s mother two other daughters, A.G. and E.M., about seeing Fairbanks place a pillow over the baby in the past and hearing “muffled cries.”

However, Fairbanks filed a motion in limine seeking to prohibit the introduction of the evidence, claiming it violated Indiana Evidence Rules 404(b) and 403.

The Marion Superior Court denied Fairbanks’ motion.

In its closing argument, the state told the jury Fairbanks “smothered Janna with a pillow. He caused her to suffocate and die.”

The jury found Fairbanks not guilty of murder but guilty of Level I felony neglect. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

One life ended; one life consigned to a prison cell; at least three more lives (the mother and two siblings) irreversibly damaged. Hug your kids tonight; I know I will be hugging mine. 

Our Future

I am generally not one to proselytize religion on this blog, as evidenced by the more or less complete absence of religious reference on here. However, I went to church this past Sunday and the minister said something that really hit home with me. I will do my best to paraphrase:

While it has become a popular, feel-good message to state that the children are our future, it simply isn't true. The children are no more our future than are seeds our salad. It is incumbent on us, the adults, to ensure that the children are properly brought up to care for and tend the future. If we fail our own children, the failure of the future belongs to us in greater proportion than does it belong to our children. It is our responsibility to save the seed corn from today's crop, plant that seed corn, tend to it, harvest it, and save a new batch of seed corn.

In other words, when I stop paraphrasing a man who is considerably more eloquent than I, insofar as we adults (and I say "we" to very much encompass myself, at 41 years old) complain about the "kids these days," that complaint should be directed inward, as we have collectively failed to raise the "kids these days" in a way that is satisfactory for us. Insofar as the "good old days" were better than the present days, this is our fault. The world today is what we made out of the world of yesterday. For the mathematically inclined, it can be represented by an equation: [today] = [yesterday] + [our influence].

I suppose the proper question for our public policy, at every level, is twofold: (1) is "our influence" a positive or negative input to the world of yesterday; and (2) are we properly saving, planting, etc., our seed corn and teaching the next generation to do so, or are we eating it with no thought for the future?

American Kleptocracy

It's not just Donald Trump, and it's not just the Republicans. Please read this story.