Failure To Protect Capitol Raises Serious Questions

Jan. 6, 2020

Two things led to the “siege” of the Capitol building last week.

  1. A group of thugs broke off from an otherwise peaceful protest of hundreds of thousands Trump supporters and forced their way into the Capitol building.
  2. All that stood between the Jan. 6 protesters and the Capitol building were two dozen police officers positioned behind a small portable fence. They weren’t even wearing riot gear.

Two factors led to the “siege” but only one – the demonstration – has received any real attention.  

If authorities had provided the same level of security seen at Black Lives Matter demonstrations last summer, the siege could not have occurred. By failing to provide adequate security, police effectively handed the thugs a key to the building.

President-Elect Joe Biden labelled the difference in security between the June 3 and Jan. 6 protests a symptom of race discrimination and the perception of a greater threat by black protesters. However, the police protected not only the Capitol building but also BLM, which would have suffered a public relations disaster had protesters had broken into the Capitol. It’s message, just like Trump’s concerns about voter fraud, would have been lost.

June 2, 2020

Without the police, BLM’s message about race discrimination – like Trump’s message about election fraud – might have been lost.

Continue reading “Failure To Protect Capitol Raises Serious Questions”

The Veil over the U.S. Supreme Court

In Cleveland, puppets are being used by a TV station to reenact excerpts from a political corruption trial that is closed to the public … Why not have puppets reenact  U.S. Supreme Court hearings?  Big Bird could play Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Abbie Cadabby could play Elena Kagen. PGB

 

Our society is increasingly divided between the “haves” and the “have nots,” with the vast majority of Americans now strongly disapproving of the way that government is operating.

The President and the U.S. Congress receive much of the blame because they are seen fumbling in prime-time under glare of the television spotlight. But there is another equally or even more powerful branch of government that manages to stay out of the spotlight – the judiciary, led by the U.S. Supreme Court.

If you think that corporations have disproportionate influence in American government, you need only look to the Court’s 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), holding that corporate funding of “independent” political broadcasts in elections is protected speech under the First Amendment. That ruling alone has spurred a tsunami of money into partisan election politics from corporations seeking to advance their interests.

Most people today “watch” their news on television or the Internet. Refusing to be televised is akin to insisting in 1440 that the bible be penned in ink by monks, longhand, rather than printed on the newfangled Gutenberg printing press. However, federal judges are elected for life and if they don’t want to be televised then who’s going to make them?

Now the Court is getting another opportunity to affect the balance of interests between corporate America and the average American. The Court has agreed to review the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care law, which is being challenged by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business.

A recent USA TODAY/Gallup Poll found that 72% of the people surveyed think the Court should allow cameras to televise oral arguments on the health care law, which are scheduled to be held in March.

Courts in the United States generally are unsympathetic to issues surrounding workplace abuse and unfair dismissal,  especially when compared to courts in many other industrialized societies.  Last summer, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to certify a class action involving 1.5 million workers at Walmart who allege sex discrimination in violation of Title VII. The Court’s ruling will have an enormous  impact upon the ability of workers to secure fair treatment in the workplace.

Unfortunately, most non-union workers are clueless about how few  protections they really have until  they are escorted from the building with their possessions in a cardboard box.  Televising the proceedings of the U.S. Supreme Court is important to the goal of having an informed and educated public. Or is that what the Court is afraid of?