Justice

Sorry to be morbid but there’s a strong statistical possibility that one of the current justices will move on—whether retiring or expiring—in the next four years and that the next president will once again be called upon to nominate someone for the highest Court in the land.

Preamble
We’re a few weeks away from the presidential election and at the halfway point in this series of columns. Therefore, before we tackle this week’s issue, it’s appropriate to pause and assess the current situation.

In the first election column I referred to this series as a summit quest; a challenge to leave more nonsensical items of the campaign silly season behind and equip ourselves only with the truth as we tackle important issues. In it I also laid out a few irrefutable facts and circumstances that would serve as underlying assumptions, or “base camp,” for our climb and warned that the closer one gets to the summit, the thinner the air would become. Little did I know how prescient this analogy was; even former Vice President Al Gore blamed President Obama’s horrific debate performance in Colorado on altitude sickness.

Whether it was his fumbling answers or Mitt Romney’s Cosa Nostra-like threats to public television—kissing Big Bird on one cheek while plunging a knife beneath his wing—our ascent must take into consideration current events and the candidates’ performance. As far as the first debate is concerned, Romney took command of the evening and ran the proceedings as though he was giving a Power Point presentation. He was concise, efficient and direct, never once allowing the facts to stand in his way. Obama was riddled like Sonny at the Causeway as jubilant Romney fans took to the airwaves and social media to pounce on bewildered liberals.

Great fun.

As stunned as I was by this turn of events, it changes nothing with respect to my analysis of the election because both President Obama and Gov. Romney have substantial records and demonstrated beliefs that are far more illuminating than the debates. Moreover, our country’s challenges remain the same, as do the circumstances in which we live. It’s why policies and issues are more important than one’s ability to annunciate them in less than two minutes. I’m not questioning the importance of the debates as far as campaigning is concerned, but nothing said between the two men can alter what they have done in the past or where we are today.

But the home stretch of a campaign puts everything under a microscope, and no one can predict what might become a turning point. The tragic event that occurred at our embassy in Libya on Sept. 11th was immediately and inappropriately politicized by the Romney camp. The White House followed up with its own (ongoing) gaffe by not forthrightly acknowledging the strong possibility that this was an organized terrorist attack and not an impromptu protest that spun out of control. But, here again, as maddening as Obama’s reticence in this matter is, his patience demonstrates why his approach is more preferable to the blustering rhetoric coming from the right.

Here’s why: As the evidence mounts from that night, it seems increasingly clear that this was indeed an organized terrorist attack. Therefore, it should be dealt with in the same covert manner that we have been conducting our affairs for the past four years. Overreacting in this part of the world, particularly in a state as fragile as Libya, can have devastating repercussions. If we had responded with immediate force like the George W. Bush “shoot first, look for WMD’s later” approach when the images first appeared of Ambassador Chris Stevens’ body being carried by unknown Libyans, then we would have missed that they were actually Libyan civilians who had found the ambassador alive and were calling for help. When none were found, they put Stevens into a car and took him to a hospital.

The world around us is so fragile. What some regard as callousness on the part of the president should be viewed as his understanding of this reality.
With that consideration, let us soldier on to this week’s chosen issue. The first few columns in this series took a detailed and practical look at the economy, deregulation, foreign policy and the stimulus. This week is more personal and I will keep it brief.

Justice
One of the most important aspects of the presidency is the opportunity to nominate justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. For some presidents, it has been their most enduring legacies. Four of the justices are currently in their 70s, and the average American lifespan according to the Centers for Disease Control is 78. Sorry to be morbid but there’s a strong statistical possibility that one of the current justices will move on—whether retiring or expiring—in the next four years and that the next president will once again be called upon to nominate someone for the highest Court in the land.

While we believe the collective American conscience has evolved beyond horrifying decisions such as Dred Scott, even the current Court is capable of alarming incompetence. Consider the Citizen United decision or simply read the following remarks made recently by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia at the American Enterprise Institute:

“The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”

This type of spiteful and irresponsible attitude must be quelled by stacking the Court with thinking and feeling individuals.

Hopefully, Citizen United will someday be repealed. Ironically, perhaps an Obama Court will someday reverse one of his most dangerous acts thus far, which was to sign into law the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA 2012 bill last year, one of the greatest encroachments on our civil liberties in decades. Lastly, as the father of two daughters, I have no choice but to take the Republican Party at its word with respect to its desire to take away a woman’s right to choose. Sticking our heads in the sand and saying, “Oh, that will never happen,” ignores the Republican platform, their campaign promises and actual bills Republicans have put forward in Congress.

Because Obama has already demonstrated his tendencies with respect to the Court through his appointments of Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, we know where he stands. During his political career, Mitt Romney has stood on all sides of virtually every issue and therefore offers little insight into the type of nominee he would proffer. But his acquiescence to the most radical conservative wing of the Republican Party is troubling enough to inform my decision in this case.

This court once again sides with the incumbent.

 

Binge and Purge

Conservative, anti-environmental activists such as Michele Bachmann like to portray the EPA and other environmental regulatory bodies as proof of America’s increasingly hostile, dystopian government when in practice the very opposite is true.

Part V of The Season of Our Disconnect

Jon Huntsman, President Barack Obama’s former ambassador to China, broke away from the field of Republican presidential candidates in bellicose fashion this week. He chose to take on his opponents by slaying a sacred cow in today’s GOP by thumbing his nose at unconventional wisdom with the most scandalous pronouncement thus far in the campaign. If you are sensitive to radical ideas and harsh language, I urge you to stop reading now.

In a tweet to his followers, Jon Huntsman said: “To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.”

Crazy, indeed.  What’s next? Dinosaurs roamed the Earth?

Huntsman is reacting to the growing anti-environmental platform in American politics, a curious development in an even more curious nascent silly season. Sorry, Planet Earth. Due to the ongoing recession it is increasingly evident that the Earth-friendly platform will not be making an appearance this time around as our current president seems to favor the corporate interests of companies like Monsanto and Cargil; the opposition candidates… well… quite frankly it looks as though they just flat-out hate you.

For example, the winner of the ridiculously un-scientific Iowa Straw Poll, Michele Bachmann, has promised to shutter the Environmental Protection Agency on her first day in the White House. Rick Perry won’t close the EPA, but he’ll make gall-derned sure he castrates it like a bull calf to keep it from killing our jobs. Rick Santorum has said that because humans exhale carbon dioxide, regulating carbon emissions is therefore ludicrous. (No, I’m not making any of this up.) Most of the people running for president on the GOP ticket seem to believe that even though we are still the wealthiest nation on God’s greenish/brown Earth that environmental standards are holding us back. That maybe—just maybe—if we allowed ourselves to revert to pollution standards from the height of the Industrial Revolution, we would be better off. 

Mind you, although we haven’t lost our standing as the No. 1 economy on the planet, we do rank second behind China in carbon emissions. This loss of status has somehow translated into a sort of clarion call for deregulation activists who equate progress with the relaxation of environmental standards. Never mind the fact that on many days one would have trouble seeing clearly through the window of a building in Linfen, China, or that the Beijing government instituted “emergency air-quality measures” in the days leading up to the Summer Olympics.

Our narrow view on environmentalism has left everyone already suffocating from American ignorance and Chinese malfeasance nonplussed and defenseless. In his book Harmony, A New Way of Looking at the World, Prince Charles talks about his experience at the UN Conference in Copenhagen and the “all-out assault on the evidence base” of climate change, calling it “a deliberate attempt to dampen the justified concerns about the climate change threat.”

Presidential candidates who call for dismantling the EPA to help America reclaim its hegemony in destroying the atmosphere are nothing more than hucksters handing out licenses to operate toxic apothecaries stocked with volatile organic compounds. Conservative, anti-environmental activists such as Michele Bachmann like to portray the EPA and other environmental regulatory bodies as proof of America’s increasingly hostile, dystopian government when in practice the very opposite is true.

Ironically, common ground regarding the environment can be found in yet another profound area of intensely partisan disagreement: universal health care. It is in this debate that one can find room for both ardent anti-climate change deniers like Rick Perry and fervent environmental activists like Al Gore, whom Perry once supported. It’s far easier to agree that noxious emissions and pollutants increase the risk of disease and that a sick population is an expensive one to treat. Therefore, isn’t universal disease-prevention by regulating pollution a more efficient way for the market to deliver robust health care? Hell, there’s even room for Ron Paul under this tent.

Whether or not our society wakes up to the fact that we are indeed killing the planet and sacrificing human health along the way, there is an inevitable truth greater than all of us. Those who are most attuned to changes in weather patterns, the degradation of the world’s food supply, the rise of chronic health problems, and the rapid disappearance of clean water understand that humans will ultimately pay the price for our sins, not the Earth.

This is not the first time the Earth has been in such a precarious position. Moreover, there is mounting evidence of how she handles crises. We binge, she purges. The most succinct explanation of this phenomenon is from the great orator and environmentalist Oren Lyons, Faithkeeper of the Onondaga Nation. Rather than paraphrase, I’ll leave you with his sentiment:

“What if we choose to eradicate ourselves from this Earth, by whatever means? The Earth goes nowhere. And in time, it will regenerate, and all the lakes will be pristine. The rivers, the waters, the mountains, everything will be green again. It’ll be peaceful. There may not be people, but the Earth will regenerate. And you know why? Because the Earth has all the time in the world and we don’t.”

– Oren Lyons