Indeed, these are days filled with extreme contradictions, confrontations, and conflict. It is a time when there appears to be a floating series of definitions of what is ethical, what is moral, and what is legal. Lies and innuendos have become commonplace in the rhetoric of those who seek and are given an audience to influence. There appears to be no boundaries or guardrails designed to maintain some modicum of order over chaos.
Recently, it became known that another Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Alito, Jr., had been the recipient of a plush fishing trip to Alaska, paid for by a Republican billionaire. The known benefactor was alleged to have been involved with several cases before the supreme court that came before the court during Alito’s tenure on the court. At issue is not only the question about whether he should have recused himself from those cases, but he also failed to report the trip on his annual financial disclosure form. Interestingly, Alito took unprecedented action by writing an Op Ed for the Wall Street Journal before the Information was made public by ProPublica. It is not only uncommon for justices to respond so publicly, but it is even more out of character to take this step before the information is published. One could surmise that, perhaps, Alito took this tact to deflect what many would conclude was an action that was, in the least, unethical. In his defense, he made the statement that the seat he occupied on the plane would have gone empty if he had not gone on the trip. Not exactly a resounding defense! Do keep in mind that this is the justice who wrote the majority opinion of the case that undid the 50 plus years of the Roe decision on abortion rights. He along with his fellow, ‘judicial heartthrob of the far right”, Clarence Thomas, have been singularly focused on undermining the Roe decision. These two represent the staunchest conservative justices and their decisions reflect this over and over.
The current court continues to undo precedents in cases that they believe have been too overreaching and violate the specific intent of the authors of the constitution. I continue to be perplexed and amazed that those who define themselves as originalists have the wherewithal and insight to unwaveringly know what the founders meant. Is the constitution meant to be a stagnant document that would not be subject to interpretation that fostered change consistent with society’s perspectives? Was it meant to be a fluid document that ebbs and flows with changing norms, mores, and practices? Recently, the conservative composition of the court by a 6-3 majority, ruled that affirmative action in higher education was unconstitutional, thus another precedent is swallowed up by the self-appointed guardians of what is right in our society. Parenthetically, it is interesting that the staunchest conservative on the current court, Clarence Thomas, benefitted from affirmative action. His admission to Holy Cross University and Yale University Law School was certainly aided by his race. It seems that now that he’s “in the club” he’s going to keep others who look like him out.
To be fair and balanced, it should be noted that not every decision by the current court has been of some concern. Recently, in a case involving the State of North Carolina, the court struck down the state’s attempt to exercise control over federal elections. It has been common knowledge that state legislatures in several states have passed legislation that makes voting more difficult for certain people and less available to many of these same individuals, The North Carolina action was one more attempt to control the election process and attendant procedures.
It is not only the action of the Supreme Court that highlights the divisions in the country, but also the current legal activity surrounding the former president. His conviction in New York for sexual harassment and his indictment on 37 counts in the documents case are historic when laid down beside others who have served as President. Not even James Buchanan, who had the distinctive honor of being recognized as the “worst president in history”, until Trump came along, could boast of being criminally and civilly charged. Trump’s response to his current woes is to lie and justify what he has done and repeatedly boasts, “I did nothing wrong”. Further, he is using these legal actions as political fodder with his minions. At his campaign rallies, he distorts any facts, makes up alternative information, and resorts to adolescent “name-calling” of those who he claims are against him. The fealty that his followers give him is unprecedented and quite perplexing. His recent claims are that these legal actions are really directed toward his followers, and they are using him to get to them. He has stated that he “has the courage” to represent those who blindly provide him with his ego maniacal need for self-aggrandizement and self-promotion.
Th third area to look at which reflects the divisiveness in the country is the Congress, especially the House of Representatives. It seems as if each day there is just one more bizarre incident that belies any sense of reason or rationale. There is such divisiveness that very little has been accomplished and it looks like very little will be accomplished with this dysfunctional congress. The Freedom Caucus is hell bent on getting its way and the numbers allow for this to happen. The Republicans have only a 4-vote majority so any desertion from the total number undermines a specific action. There seems to be very little concern for or attention to what the country needs and what individuals want. Many are beholden to lobbyists or special interest groups who have their own agenda and that is often at the peril of the country’s needs. There may be change in the composition of the congress in 2024 but it may not be in the direction of what’s best for the body politic.
Yes, there are problems, but they are not insurmountable. Yet the only answers lie in those in power coming to the realization that there is a need to work together. History has underscored the reality that this was the hallmark of past generations. There were party differences, but often, there was the move to work together and embrace the “art of compromise”. Hopefully, we can return to this saner approach.