The hearings

We have just witnessed one of the most partisan events in the country’s history.  As we know, a function of the United States Senate is to offer advice and consent on any judicial nominations put forth by the president.  No doubt, this critical role was included in the Constitution of the country as an attempt to maintain the balance of power between the three arms of the government--executive, legislative, and judicial.  This critical role was not meant to simply rubber-stamp presidential wishes.  Advice and consent should require careful, thoughtful, and thorough inquiry into the lives and actions of the nominees that are brought before the Senate.  What occurred over the past couple of weeks was a sham in carrying out the advise and consent process. 

From the beginning of the confirmation hearings, it was apparent that the Republican leadership was focused on moving to confirmation of the nominee with deliberate speed.  Arbitrary deadlines were announced that, they believed, would fulfill this expectation.  Documents were withheld or made available at the “last minute” to undermine any attempt to carefully, thoughtfully and thoroughly examine and analyze the documents.  It was reported that only 4 percent of the documents related to the nominee were made available.  Once the decision was made to have the FBI investigate the allegations presented by two of the women, the FBI investigation was limited to one week.  It concluded in less than a week.  To carefully, thoughtfully, and thoroughly investigate these allegations would have required a longer period.  The FBI investigation only contributed to the sham that was perpetrated on the American people.  The motivation of the majority was to move the nomination along so that the decision would be reached prior to the mid-term elections.  This mandate by the leadership was achieved.

Throughout the hearings there remained the lingering question of the nominee’s honesty, integrity, and moral character.  Once the accuser appeared before the Judiciary Committee, it came down to the proverbial, “he said, she said”.   Did the nominee engage in sexually assaulting the young woman?  No doubt, we will never know.  Did the nominee tell repeated lies throughout the questioning?  There are several sources who claim that this occurred.  For example, GQ magazine identified 16 statements made by the nominee that were not supported by factual information. Other references included an article in Slate, “Kavanaugh Lied to the Judiciary Committee—Repeatedly” and an article in Nation, “Brett Kavanaugh Has Lied His Way Onto the Supreme Court”.  Were the lies about significant maters or events?  How much beer the nominee drank is not of primary significance, but to lie about it goes to the moral character and honesty of the individual. Did the nominee engage in the “Devil’s Triangle” which is sexual activity between two males and a female or was it a drinking game as he claimed?  Did he participate in “boofing” which is defined as anal sex or ingesting drugs or alcohol in the anus or did it refer to farting as he claimed?  While a student at Yale, did he expose himself to a female student or did this not occur?  Whether he engaged in these activities is not the issue.  The issue is, did he lie about it.  It is not being suggested that the allegations do not have merit, but there are larger issues that flow from dishonesty, lack of integrity and questionable moral character, especially for an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court—this should be the concern of all Americans.  In the Slate article the author concluded by stating the following: “But one thing is certain.  He lied repeatedly to the Judiciary Committee on Thursday.  Some of his lies, about the testimony of witnesses and the integrity of investigations go to the heart of our system of justice.  Any senator who votes to put this man on the Supreme Court is saying that lies don’t matter.”  This past Saturday 50 senators voted for confirmation.  Are they saying that lies don’t matter?       

American resolve

Flags flew at half-mast, bells were rung as the names of the fallen were read, and the nation was brought back to September 11, 2001.  On that day America came under attack, and--as we recall--the World Trade Center was destroyed, the Pentagon sustained heavy damage, and a field in Pennsylvania was marred forever.  Lives were lost in unbelievable numbers.  The composition of families was changed:  sons, daughters, wives, husbands, brothers, and sisters were never to return to their homes.  Children would grow up without a father or a mother, there would be one less brother or sister and mothers and fathers would bury their children.  The day of the attacks, 2,606 people died in the World Trade Center and surrounding areas.  At the Pentagon, 125 individuals lost their lives and 44 went down with the plane in the Pennsylvania field.  Over 6000 were injured on this fateful day.  Subsequently it has been estimated that 1,140 people contracted some form of cancer from exposure to the toxins emitted from the destruction of the towers.  Approximately 1,400 rescue workers have died since the attacks.  The outcome of the attacks continues to have ramifications with those who were involved in or close to the devastation.  Some of the scars are visible while others are not seen, but still have left a lasting impact on the afflicted.

The evening of September 11, President George W. Bush addressed the nation and included in his remarks the following statements: “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America.  These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.”  Indeed, the response by the president was a major solidifying factor in bringing all Americans to stand together regardless of political party affiliation, religious orientation, gender, race or ethnicity.  America had been attacked and there was a sense of unity for all to support the administration in its response.  It is most unfortunate that often it is a catastrophe or some disaster that unites the populace to put ideology aside and do what needs to be done.  We have seen this when natural disasters occur such as tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, volcanic eruptions floods, and we saw it after the attacks.  Why must there be major life-altering events to act as a unifying force amongst us? After 9/11, there was a measure of oneness that brought people together. 

As we reflect on the horrific attacks on this day there are memories that are indelibly etched in our psyche.  Even though there was a great deal of pain and suffering, people responded and volunteered to help in any way they could, but we have lost this sense of togetherness in the current climate that pervades our country.  There is a sense of pervasive skepticism in the behavior and actions of members of the current administration.  We have become a society that is marred by diverse and unwavering beliefs that often belie reason and simple common sense.  As we reflect on the current climate, can we foresee a better time—a time when people come together to deal with common issues, needs, and concerns? Will it take another catastrophic event to ignite the flames of a caring and unified society?   p American resolve does rise to the occasion when called upon to do so.  Let us hope that we can move to employ such resolve short of a unifying catastrophe.  

Filing the court's seat

In their book The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court, Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong describe how the Supreme Court functions.  There are numerous examples of informal actions that have dictated the course of judicial history since the beginning of the nation.  What strikes the reader of this interesting and fascinating description is that the sacred view of total objectivity is a myth that many of us have believed.  The belief that the Supreme Court is the last bastion of fairness and constrained decision-making is, simply, not true.  In the State of Alabama there is a lobbying effort that sort of plays into the thesis espoused in The Brethren. 

There are four Supreme Court Justices who will allow you to keep your gun beside your bed and four Supreme Court Justices who will not allow you to keep your gun beside your bed.  Thus, goes the message from what appears to be the National Rifle Association to the electorate of Alabama.  The advertisement is on television promoting support for the nomination of Bert Kavanaugh as the next Supreme Court Justice who will side with those four who support you keeping your gun beside you.  This advertisement is a prime example of attempts by a segment of the lobbying enterprise to impact perceptions of potential voters in Alabama.  The message continues by encouraging individuals to let Senator Doug Jones know how he is to vote during the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh.  The advertisement poses the question: who will Senator Jones side with, the people of Alabama or the liberals that make up the Democratic party.  The entirety of the message is a blatant insult to the intellect of the people of Alabama.  The advertisement is not based in fact, but so be it.  The four Justices who are identified as challenging your right to keep a gun are not against your right to do so.  They are not oriented to taking away the provisions of the Second Amendment, but, undoubtedly, they are against you having an AR 15 or another type of assault weapon leaning against your bed.  Gun control advocates are not asking anyone to abstain from shooting a gun; however, there is grave concern by these advocates about the proliferation of weapons that are not used for self-defense or hunting.

The actions that are being taken in Alabama cheapen the role of the US Supreme Court and have reduced the selection of a Justice to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy to a chaotic circus fraught with innuendos, misrepresentations, and lies.  What is occurring is nothing short of a political witch-hunt.  The selection of a Justice should be a thoughtful, considered, and thorough process.  As Senator Jones has noted, there are a multitude of documents that comprise the judicial and political history of Judge Kavanaugh and ample time should be given to review and analyze these documents by Republican and Democratic Senators.  He has strongly urged the Republican Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Charles Grassley, to postpone the hearings.  The hearings are scheduled to begin September 4th and there has not been any attempt by Grassley to change the date.  All of the documents that the Republicans on the Committee have requested will not be available until October; therefore, the hearings should not begin until a later date.  If the process of confirmation is to be thoughtful, considered, and thorough then allow for the Senators of both parties adequate time to review them.  To continue with the announced date is nothing short of a charade.        

Dark Money

Recently, I was made aware of a new film by Kimberly Reed, an independent film maker residing in New York City.  The title of the film is Dark Money and it addresses the issue of corporate and foreign money being used to fund political contests at both the state and federal levels.  In 2010 the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that: “Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates or elections.”   This decision opened to the proverbial lid of Pandora’s Box.  The decision allowed entities to set up 501(c) 6 organizations as a means of protecting the sources of money received, as well as not providing any data to show how the money was spent.  Hence the term “Dark Money” was born and continues to thrive.  Not only have  these types of organizations been used by corporations, but they have become a popular source of funding for colleges and universities. 

An article, “How the University of Alabama System funneled $1.4 million through a ‘dark money’ web”, appeared in AL.com back in August 2016. Also, another media source, Inside Higher Ed, included in their August 10, 2016, issue an article, “A University System’s Back Channel Way of Lobbying State Officials”.  This article was also referencing The University of Alabama.   At the time, I wrote a Letter to the Editor of The Tuscaloosa News, raising questions about the content of the article.  The paper chose not to publish the letter, but what I wrote included the following:

“Each of these media outlets addressed a growing phenomenon amongst colleges and universities to side-step the prohibition of not-for-profit organizations from engaging in political activity.  This is being done by forming 501(c)6 organizations, which allows them to funnel money into Super PACs for the purpose of lobbying state legislators.  The University of Alabama System is a member of the Alabama Association for Higher Education (AAHE) and has given substantial sums of money to this organization which then provides money to Innovation PAC.  Allegedly, there are 9 members of this association; however, when questioned, officials associated with the AAHE or the university’s system office have avoided identifying the other members. As reported in the Al.com article, the principal architects of the Alabama Association of Higher Education were Bill Jones, the former lobbyist for the University System and Robert Witt, the retiring Chancellor of the System.  What is being done is not illegal, but there is a reason the funds are referred to as “dark money”.  The practice undermines the law that allows organizations to be not-for-profit entities and makes a mockery of the principal of transparency.”

The ability to “hide” the donors and identify the beneficiaries of the funds creates an environment of mistrust and a blatant lack of confidence in the political process.  Indeed, elections are being bought and there is no greater evidence of this than the involvement of the Koch brothers in the use of “dark money”, primarily in providing funds to higher education to promote their rightwing political agenda. 

The cap

Typically, when I travel, I wear a cap with a distinct “A” on it denoting the University of Alabama.  I have had numerous expressions of “Roll Tide” directed my way because of the cap.  Recently, my wife and I were on vacation in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and went over to Teton Village to ride the tram to the top of the mountain.  The weather turned a bit dicey as the wind picked up and it began to rain.  Due to the change in the weather, we decided that the tram was no longer an option, so we ducked into a small café and bar.  Settling in at the bar, we noticed that there was one other couple and upon seeing my cap, the lady let out a “Roll Tide”.  As we talked, we learned that they were from Fairhope, Alabama.  We spent some time visiting with our new-found Tide supporters.  On this same trip we were leaving the Rocky Mountain west and flying back to Birmingham.  As we were going through security at the Denver airport, the TSA person asked where we were going and commented about the cap.  Similarly, on the plane a young lady made note of the university that I, obviously, supported.

A couple of years ago, my wife and I spent a week driving through the State of Oregon—a state that neither of us had visited.  One evening we were driving through a small coastal town looking for a place to have dinner.  We stopped at a restaurant that was on the shore but could not get a reservation.  As we left the restaurant, I heard “Roll Tide” which was spoken by a fellow I knew who had recently retired from the university where he had been a Professor of Statistics in the business school.  We chatted for some time and left to find another place to have dinner. 

Last year we were on a cruise through the Caribbean and going through the ship’s gift shop when we heard, “Roll Tide”.  We recognized that the person making the statement was a businesswoman from Tuscaloosa.  There would not have been any sense of recognition if it were not for the cap.  I also recall on another cruise to Alaska; a fellow began talking with me about the upcoming football season.  This discussion would not have occurred if I was not wearing the cap.  He was from Missouri and the University of Missouri had recently become a member of Southeastern Conference; therefore, he wanted to discuss their chances in the new conference.

I have come to realize that the cap fosters these exchanges and they would not occur if there was no cap.  The term “Roll Tide” is a unique greeting that is spoken in a variety of contexts within the state of Alabama as well as throughout the world.  It replaces a “hello” as a greeting and there is never any mystery about what is being referred to when the phrase is used.  I will continue to wear the cap as I travel, and I am certain that there will be other situations that generate a “Roll Tide”.