Little known fact: Seeing the Forest’s slogan is “Who is our economy FOR, anyway?”
A lot of things we “know” about history come from “one side.” For example, we “know” that “protectionism” caused the Great Depression. Except it didn’t.
Who benefits from convincing the public that protecting national interests is bad if it reduces corporate profits? There are so, so many “truths” like that.
Another “Truth”: Court Packing is Bad
Here’s another “truth.” FDR tried to “pack the Supreme Court” and it was very, very bad.
I thought I’d look up what the Supreme Court was actually doing that led to FDR trying to do something to balance the Court, and what happened when he finally did try. Go ahead and try to find answers (the actual truth) to that question. It’s hard to find.
Eventually, if you know the right search terms, you might come across this, at a site called fdr4freedoms. (I’ll be exploring that site further.)
In 1932 and 1936, Americans enthusiastically embraced FDR’s vision of a federal government ready to use its power to make real improvements in their lives. They voted for him overwhelmingly. With Democratic majorities (augmented by Republican progressives) dominating both houses of Congress, the legislature also resoundingly endorsed FDR’s program of bold experimentation.
… But opponents in business and elsewhere repeatedly sued to block the laws. As these challenges reached the high court in 1935, four justices, with the help of one or two swing votes, began striking down the new laws as unconstitutional.
Summary: FDR worked to save regular people from the suffering caused by the depression. The sensible things he wanted to do were very, very popular. But it threatened corporate profits. The Court struck down FDR’s attempts to use government to help and protect the public.
The court struck down laws securing a minimum wage, maximum work hours, and the right to unionize for workers. It rejected pension programs and child labor restrictions, price codes and farm subsidies.
… “The Constitution grants to Congress no power to regulate for the promotion of the general welfare,” as the majority proclaimed in a 1936 case striking down a minimum wage and other regulation in the coal industry.
The Court said the government has no power to protect the public from anything the rich and corporations do to them! It even ruled that states couldn’t set minimum wages by themselves!
What Happened When FDR Threatened To Add Justices?
FRD proposed a plan to reduce the Court’s workload (badly needed then and even more now) and balance the Court by appointing an additional Supreme Court justice for every sitting justice over the age of seventy.
Result: The Court began to rule for the public! The Court ruled in favor of state minimum wage laws. This was dubbed “the switch in time that saved nine.” Then the Court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Act, protecting striking workers. Next it upheld the Security Act’s retirement and unemployment benefits. And then one of the right-wing Justices announced his retirement.
After these reversals, interest in rebalancing and expanding the Court faded.
The “Court Packing” threat WORKED.
FDR proposed rebalancing the Court. Immediately the Court started ruling in the public’s favor. One of the right-wing Justices even retired.
It worked. Threatening to rebalance the court SUCCEEDED! So when you hear that Democrats shouldn’t try to balance the Court today because it was bad when FDR tried to “pack the court,” you’re hearing that because “one side’ has made it a “truth.”
It’s is time to rebalance the Court.
If you are considering whether the US will be another “democracy” to fall to authoritarian rule/fascism here’s a question to ask: Is the Democratic Party committed to Rule of Law? Will it fight to protect us and our democracy? How about the Justice Department?
Brett Kavanaugh – Apparent Criminality At The Highest Levels
Here is a test of that: Are Dems willing to fight apparent criminality at the very highest levels? Will the House of Representatives or Justice Dept. investigate the allegations that Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh committed perjury during nomination hearings, and will the Justice Dept. indict, or House Dems impeach Kavanaugh if their investigation concludes he did?
Set Aside The Other Stuff
Keep it simple. There’s too much other stuff about Kavanaugh, muddying the issue. Set aside the other stuff.
Set aside out the questions about why Justice Kennedy resigned when he did (and how it might relate to Deutsche Bank and the Russia investigation), who paid off Kavanaugh’s debts, and the larger issue of the “dark money” machine that puts Federalist Society candidates into judgeships.
Other “Other Stuff”
And, of course, that other “other stuff:
Nearly a year after Justice Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to a lifetime appointment in the Supreme Court, the New York Times has reported a new allegation of sexual misconduct from Kavanaugh’s college years, as well as new corroborating information about Deborah Ramirez’s claim that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at Yale.
In his confirmation hearings Kavanaugh made several statements about his drinking and sexual misconduct that were obviously not true. (Just one obvious one: His yearbook referred to “ralphing” and Kavanaugh testified that meant eating spicy foods.)
It looks very much like Brett Kavanaugh committed perjury on other issues during nomination hearings for his appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as well as his Supreme Court nomination hearings.
Among many, many reports on Kavanaugh’s contradictions between his testimony that these hearings and evidence that has since been revealed, Pema Levy and Dan Friedman write at Mother Jones, in Five Times Brett Kavanaugh Appears to Have Lied to Congress While Under Oath,
During his 2004 hearing, Kavanaugh denied ever receiving any of the documents Miranda stole. Asked if he “ever come across memos from internal files of any Democratic members given to you or provided to you in any way?” he replied, “No.” In 2006, also under oath, he again denied ever receiving stolen documents.
But newly released documents show that Miranda had indeed sent Kavanaugh information from the stolen internal documents. The nominee continues to deny he knew the information was stolen. But he can no longer deny he received it.
At a 2006 confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh told Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) that he knew nothing of the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program, launched under President George W. Bush, until the New York Times revealed it publicly in 2005. Kavanaugh insisted he’d heard “nothing at all” about the program before that, even though he was a senior administration aide. But a September 17, 2001 email provided to the New York Times this week shows that Kavanaugh was involved in at least initial discussions about the widespread surveillance of phones that characterized the NSA program.
Similarly, Kavanaugh testified he had nothing to do with Bush’s torture policies while records now show he was involved in at least 3 discussions of detainee policies.
Kavanaugh also said in hearings he had not been involved in William Pryor’s nomination to the 11th Circuit, new documents and emails show he was “heavily’ involved.
And finally he said in hearings that he was not involved in the nomination of Charles Pickering when new emails show he was.
So Yeah… There’s A Lot Going On
So yeah, there’s a lot going on. And is this such a big deal?
Well yes. A guy is on the Supreme Court and everyone knows he’s a liar and possibly a lot of other things. But the people and institutions that are supposed to do something about that aren’t doing ANYTHING about that. And it’s right in front of our faces.
And on top of that, the guy is doing serious damage to our country!
So … once again WHERE ARE THE DEMOCRATS? Where is the Department of Justice? Where is the Rule of Law?
There is a short time left to hold the authoritarians and the fascists and the liars and the “dark money” accountable, and restore the Rule of Law (and decency). If that doesn’t happen then in the next election the 1776 experiment in self-government will end, and the Cruelty will again be THE POINT.
We all came out and voted for the people who said they would DO SOMETHING ABOUT THESE THINGS. When is it going to start happening?
A mix of authoritarianism, pro-wrestling, “stab-in-the-back” mythology (“they” sold us out), militaristic imagery, shooting machine guns while saying he won’t “appease the left,” bikers and Trump stickers.
See for yourself:
I actually worked at it. I used to have a pay stub from “Food for Love, Inc.” Don’t know what happened to it.
On Aug.15, 1969, the Woodstock Music and Arts Festival, often described as a landmark counterculture event, opened on Max Yasgur’s farm near Bethel, N.Y., drawing an estimated 400,000 people for three days of music.
There was never a plan to “win” in Afghanistan because Afghanistan was never the point.
From Day 1 of their time in office – before 9/11 – the Bushies wanted Iraq. They wanted the oil. They had meetings with oil companies, drawing up maps dividing up Iraq’s oil reserves.
Then 9/11 happened. Opportunity. They had to go into Afghanistan because of the “optics” but Iraq’s oil was always the target. Don’t forget that the Bushies convinced the public that Iraq attacked us on 9/11, and were going to attack us again with nukes and anthrax. Do you remember the fear?
The Republicans said that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, had weapons of mass destruction – including and especially nukes – and was going to give those weapons to terrorists or use those weapons on us SOON unless we act. “Dirty bombs” might go off at any moment. Smallpox might hit any day. We must go to war to save ourselves. Those Democrats are against the war – are against protecting ourselves.
The threat was so imminent that we must take the unprecedented step of having a war vote just before the elections.
Immediately after invading Afghanistan Bush shifted attention and resources to Iraq. From The Original Sin of the War in Afghanistan in the Atlantic, (Emphasis added, for emphasis.)
The Bush administration’s focus started shifting within weeks of the Taliban’s ouster, and plans for the Iraq invasion soon became all-consuming. Too light a troop presence in Afghanistan meant that security was never truly established; too little money actually delivered meant that the fledgling government was never able to prove its credibility to its own people; too little focus from U.S. policy makers meant that a highly centralized governing structure, imposed on a never-before-centralized nation, could not be prevented from degenerating into nepotism, ineffectiveness, and rampant corruption. Failure to provide enough troops, money, and focus on the front end resulted in exponentially more troops, money, and focus down the line.
By the time U.S. troops crossed into Iraq in 2003, Afghanistan was already an afterthought for the administration.
What followed was decades of … whatever that was. The presence of the Taliban meant the US kept sending billions to the corrupt Afghan government. We were supposedly building up the Afghan military and strengthening the government. But corruptly sending billions to corrupt officials was a powerful incentive to keep the Taliban out there.
Anyway … here we are.
Rep. Barbara Lee was the only vote against the Authorization to Use Military Force in Afghanistan.
Congress should do the right thing this time and declare today National Barbara Lee Day so her vote can be honored and remembered and the lessons learned be taught in schools (along with CRT).
Senate Majority Leader Schumer should call a vote on ending the filibuster. We deserve to know which Democrats vote for democracy and which oppose it.
This is especially important when the filibuster is being used block bills that prevent states from suppressing non-white voters.
We need to know which Democrats are helping Republicans block democracy. Every elected Democrat needs to take a public stand on this.
Until this happens, until most Democrats are demanding a public vote on this, until they force a vote on this, all Democrats should be held accountable for keeping these anti-democracy rules in place.
The Doors and The Temptations – “Break on Through (to the Funky Side)”
I wonder how they got a prototype? (It came out as Quick Step not Kwibble.)
I have a cartridge at home with a special version I made for the sales staff where the kangaroo comes up behind the squirrel and … uh …
I got off Twitter, for a while at least, and it’s wonderful. My concentration is returning. I’m able to go to the bathroom without my phone. And I’m even writing a blog post! (For better or worse.)
But I have a few questions:
– Has Trump or anyone at the top of things been held accountable for anything yet? I mean actually indicted for their crimes — not “stern letters” from Democratic senators. (Remember that report that detailed how Trump committed Obstruction but couldn’t be indicted because he was resident? Tell the Justice Dept. he’s not president anymore.) (PS His lawyer went to jail for a crime he committed with Trump but Trump couldn’t be indicted because he was president. Tell the Justice Dept. he’s not president anymore.)
This post first appeared at Imagine Democracy.
This post expands on 2019’s , a “Department of Democracy,” to protect and promote democracy.
Democracy doesn’t have an advertising agency, and our discourse is swamped by well-funded anti-democracy efforts — done by self-interested parties like the tobacco and fossil-fuel companies. For obvious reasons such interests want to get government and its rules that protect the public from harms (a.k.a. regulations) “off their backs.”
Our elections have become a game in which secretly-funded disinformation, spread by secretly-funded propaganda outlets, in rigged districts, with voter suppression and apathy deciding who rules. Those minority-selected elected officials perpetuate these barriers in a “doom loop” that is ending democracy.
If what’s left of self-rule survives we need a government agency to take on the role of protecting and promoting democracy. Perhaps we could call it a Department of Democracy.