Pushing buttons in the Oval Office/ and the respons/and addendum of Gorsuch

4/6/17

Those who hoped President Trump would be different than Candidate Trump, are now faced with the reality.  As I wrote to a friend, 

"You obviously have friends from around the world, especially the country of your birth, Germany.  I imagine just how enraged those people who didn't even get to vote are this morning, as the man we put into office, went from synapse to action in seconds, this time not a bizarre tweet, but by giving an order, proverbially pressing the button.  This time it unleashed 50 cruise missiles with a few hundred thousand pounds of explosives.   But, ominously, it showed that when he, as Commander in Chief, does order an attack, the chain of command follows though.  Orders are orders, and if another time that button was for a similar number of explosive power, except not in pounds but Megatons............

I don't have to finish the story, as few would be around to worry about it if, God forbid, he were to be so inclined.  Things are moving too fast for my usual essays, as by the time they get from idea, to draft to final polishing (as if they were to be read by more than my handful of fans) our commander and chief has revised his fantastical accusations/proclamations.  A few weeks ago our country's greatest concern was that Trump was too close with Putin, and this was somehow, outside of legitimate concern on his influence on the election, a bad thing.  One of Trump's rare reasonable statements was to the effect,"what's so bad about the U.S. having better relationships with Russia?" 

The problem of having someone in this awesome position of authority with zero experience is not evil intentions but a mercurial nature with a disinterest in understanding consequences.  "Nobody knew that health care was so complicated" he stated.  Ironically, had he replaced "nobody" with "I" it would have been heartening, meaning I really need help here;  but what he said was compounding his ignorance by the phrase being reasonably restated as, "I have as much knowledge about health care as anybody."  O.K. destroying the level of health coverage we have achieved with ACA will "only" cause death and suffering to some additional tens of millions, but his firing missiles at a country we are not at war at, that happens be allied with a country that can match our thousands of H-bombs ..........

The LA Times is publishing perhaps the longest editorial in history, so far in six parts under the rubric "Our Dishonest President"  Here's my letter to the editor that they just printed.

-------------------

To the Editor:

This editorial series will not be read by the one third of the population who still admires and supports President Trump.  While this demographic can be demeaned or ridiculed by those who applaud this editorial, there is the harsh reality that the structure of the United States Constitution allows a minority to choose a President, which over the unimaginable expansion of this country now has the plenary power to do what Donald Trump is doing.

There should be no comfort in explicating the depredations of President Trump, as if such an articulation will inherently lead to his downfall.  His power is what was given the leader of a weak country with no military that was closer to the stone age than what our world has become.  Mr. Trump is reveling in this power, with his acolytes sharing vicarious pleasure in destroying the intellectual-technical infrastructure that had provided hope for weathering the immense challenges that face our world. 

Al Rodbell
 ------------------------------------------------------
Addendum 4/10/17

Hi Ron

                    If you choose, please forward this to Justin, whom I can safely assume is no longer with the Dept of Justice

I just came across this interesting this article in Politico, that describes how Judge Merrick Gardner could have a more immediate effect in his current position than the one he was nominated for.  In his position as Chief Justice for the D.C. Court of Appeals he can, at the least, impede Trump's* scorched earth campaign against the administrative agency efforts over the last half century to provide for a healthier and more humane world.   *(I learned from their editing my last L.A. Times letter that he can be referred to as Trump or President Trump, but not "Mr. Trump.")

I spend more than sixty hours absorbed in the Gorsuch Judiciary Committee and then Floor discussion, including researching media articles and one decision of his that was never mentioned in any of the media or during the hearings. Republicans didn't have to work that hard beyond glowing generalities, since they knew he had the votes;  so Democrats took the role of prosecutors, making the case that he was an extension of existing conservative Justices, while some implying he was Trump's stooge.

It was this dissent, which can fairly be described as an extension of the Miranda decision written by another man whose entire identity before being on the Supreme Court was as a mainstream Republican, whose specific job as California Attorney General was to apprehend and convict criminals. If one reads this full dissent, we see an argument inimical to the "law and order" mentality that usually is associated with conservative ideology. 

This dissent from a ruling that allowed police to breach the virtual moat around the "castle that is a man's home" shows that a headline case such as the "frozen trucker" doesn't define a comprehensive philosophy. Here's the link 29/57 of the PDF.  A search of the internet did not return a copy of this by Gorsuch, as it was only referred to tangentially by some articles saying he had been both for and against law enforcement. 

After reading this, I concluded that it is inconsistent for one who is programed to support the right wing ideology to write an expansive dissent that would limit the capacity of the police to get evidence of a crime.  In this decision Gorsuch fits the pattern that I see in Earl Warren, who turned out to be far different than the law and order conservative that Eisenhower had intended to appoint. 

There was a deeper message for those who chose to use the confirmation hearings as an advanced seminar political studies.  Sadly, for the vast majority, it was more like a sports event, where we cheered for our team, while vilifying the messages of the opposition.  I expressed this in this letter published in the L.A. Times on their six part editorial dissecting the pathologies of the Trump administration:  

-----------------

To the Editor:

This editorial series will not be read by the one third of the population who still admires and supports President Trump.  While this demographic can be demeaned or ridiculed by those who applaud this editorial, there is the harsh reality that the structure of the United States Constitution allows a minority to choose a President, which over the unimaginable expansion of this country now has the plenary power to do what Donald Trump is doing.

There should be no comfort in explicating the depredations of President Trump, as if such an articulation will inherently lead to his downfall.  His power is what was given the leader of a weak country with no military that was closer to the stone age than what our world has become.  Mr. Trump is reveling in this power, with his acolytes sharing vicarious pleasure in destroying the intellectual-technical infrastructure that had provided hope for weathering the immense challenges that face our world.  

------------------

The time I spent transfixed by the Gorsuch hearing was intellectually stimulating, but ultimately isolating.  To be well adjusted is to have a support group, friends, family or community where there are certain shared values.  Those without this often suffer, experiencing profound depression or as a reaction, of lashing out violently against enemies.  Here's an example of the affect, defined by this imperative to cognitive consonance, towards an important person, that is telling about the mentality of our current political parties.

Charles Schumer is generally associated with leading the opposition against the Hobby Lobby decision that ruled that a hand full of followers of a religious belief could impede thousands of their employees from obtaining contraception.  Could a reasonable argument be made that he was the primary person to be held responsible for the federal law that dictated this tenth circuit and Supreme Court decision.  I had never heard this, before this hearing explained the principle of the decisions, and then I did further research.  It goes like this:  Hobby Lobby was decided based on the Federal Law known as Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, a law that happened to be described by Justice Paul Stevens as unconstitutionally breaching the First Amendment proscription against establishing a religion.  This law was introduced in the House by Representative Schumer, and passed both houses almost unanimously.  Schumer, the prime promoter of this law, was the major antagonist against Neil Gorsuch, who, like Alito on the high court, explained thay were obliged to enforce this law, and not modify it.  Was this just an excuse to gut ACA?  Based on reading both decisions, I don't think so.  Gorsuch even expressed some antipathy for this law, which he stated did not give him, as a judge, the right to modify it. 

Rooting for your political team does seem to involve a degree of willful ignorance, such as this small sample.  The current Democratic Leader promoted the law that allowed a hand full of religious extremists to impede ACA!  Or perhaps that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, would not have voted for Roe v. Wade!  Or that  Hillary Clinton, only hours before the attack suggested we go further, to destroy all of the Syrian Air Force !  

What adds to the sense of hopelessness, were the interviews with Trumps top officials on Sunday talk shows.   First was Rex Tillerson, interviewed by Fared Zakaria.   This man who never read a book on Diplomacy as trade craft was oblivious to one particular term of art, "ultamatum" or one similar in  French "demarche"  Equally oblivious were similar questions to the Ambasidor to the U.N. and the National Security Advisor when all were asked about the priority of elimating President Assad or the Islamic State.  While each of the three were ambivalent they all said that they could all be priorities, and even when the answer evoked incredulity since the very word means to order, one in the front of the other and contingent being satisfied before proceeding, none of them chose to to answer but worse denied that such a choice had to be made. 

One gave the example of WWII where we fought Germany and Japan simultaneously.  The actual comparison with that war was between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.  To destroy one meant to allow the other to gain power, while an easier decision then since we had allied ourself with Russia, many understood that they were our potential enemy who would gain by the annihilation of Germany.  The harsh reality is that the conflict in Syria is a conundrum that has no solution, or none that would be articulated by this adminstration any more than the previous one.  

The simplistic dream that getting rid of a brutal dictator would give rise to an enlightened democracy has been refuted by both Iraq and Afghanistan.  We have replaced a cautious (or feckless) President with one who mistakes his impulsiveness with strength.  

This would certainly make a terrific movie --- if only it were fiction and at the end we would all walk home in the sunlight of a world that was muddling through as it had always been.