Decisions, Decisions: How The Supreme Court Is Decimating Our Democracy One Decision At A Time

 Today, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Clean Air Act didn't apply to carbon dioxide and therefore can't be regulated by the EPA. “Hard on the heels of snatching away fundamental liberties, the right-wing activist court just curtailed vital climate action,” Jason Rylander, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, responded in a press statement Thursday. The court ruled that only Congress can make laws regarding the level of CO2 emissions. Interestingly the case came to the court due to then-president Trump trying to relax the guidelines which a federal court put a hold on. The result of this ruling is likely to create a free-for-all among states who want to loosen the law versus those who wish to strengthen it. In the meanwhile, global climate change continues and temperatures and sea levels are rising. “Today, the court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the minority joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent.

The decision is impactful to the EPA's ability to do its job. Whether it is limiting emissions from power plants to operating the existing cap-and-trade carbon offset policy, it may also give a peek into other backward steps the court and its conservative majority likely will take. “Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, which was joined by the five other conservative justices. Further, he added, “On EPA’s view of Section 111(d), Congress implicitly tasked it, and it alone, with balancing the many vital considerations of national policy implicated in the basic regulation of how Americans get their energy,” Roberts wrote. “There is little reason to think Congress did so.” In instances like this, he said, “[a] decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.” 

Regardless of this decision, the Environmental Protection Agency was formed to serve as the watchdog over the nation's environment and enact policies to preserve it, but you would think that this was some kind of fly-by-night operation that requires Congress to hold its hand to do its job. Also, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are a little difficult to maintain when the court is treating people like the frogs in the warm water experiment. Suffice to say, with the slew of recent decisions that have been handed down by this court, democracy as we know it is likely to fail us. It would seem like nobody can wrestle the steering wheel away from these unelected lifers, but the court could be expanded to lessen their impact.

A Tough "Roe" to Hoe

 With the US Supreme Court decision now official, people now are right to question what will a post-Roe world look like. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 26 states are likely or certain to ban abortions leaving 24 and the District of Columbia as places where it may remain legal. In Iowa, with a Republican stranglehold in all the key places, our state legislature is likely to either limit the window of abortion or ban it outright in the next legislative session. In addition, there may be an amendment offered to our state constitution banning abortions permanently, though that would require a majority of Iowans to vote for it.

Currently, Iowa ranks 20th in quality of life for children according to MSN and a high degree of maltreatment of children (65.6 children of 1000 in reported cases of abuse or neglect).  

All of this leads to a simple decision, do Iowans truly prize their liberties and choose to maintain their rights, like the state motto says or do we revert back to a place where women's life and healthcare decisions are limited by the draconian state they live in? We already know where our governor stands on this and her party leaders. The line that prevents them to exert their will is dotted by the November 2022 election which strongly favors them. If ever there was a time to get involved in state politics, this would be it. Support those candidates who support you and the things you believe in.

A Government "Shutdown" of a Different Kind

What a week it has been and not a whole lot to be supercharged about. SCOTUS has said that you can pretty much carry a gun anywhere you want except near their homes and other "sensitive" areas. You realize that justice is not blind, but is being blinded by the Six Stooges that are the majority opinion of the aforementioned case. 

At about the same time that Congress takes action on sensible gun laws, the courts decide to become activists for gun rights. Is this coincidental or a way to allow the Republicans to say "Well, at least I tried--but the SCOTUS knows better, I guess"? This political impotence is dangerous to democracy and having a religiously-bent, free-market-leaning Supreme Court just exacerbated this. 

Add to it the circus of Congressional hearings that will likely not lead to anybody being convicted of anything and at the least, opens the window for profiting from decidedly criminal behavior, particularly if the mid-term elections are the bloodbath that is being "predicted" by the media and pollsters.

Then stir in profiteers who are making money and flaming inflation in their wakes and whose campaign contributions make it difficult to go after for ripping all of us off. Even the Federal Reserve Bank admits that hoisting interest rates won't help us out on gas and groceries, but will likely keep people out of housing that they are already having a hard time affording. So there's that.

So what do we have to look forward to? Essentially a government "shutdown" by being made impotent through greed, power grabs, and flagging belief in it as an institution by a weary public. And this is the tip of the proverbial iceberg as other rights will likely be dissembled by the social architects in judges' robes (the next being Roe V. Wade). In so doing, the patriarchs and oligarchs win and democracy fails unless we stop rewarding the corrupt by throwing the wrong "bums" out. Mid-term elections are not glamorous, but they are important nonetheless. Hold the line while we still have a line to hold.

Before We Leave Town

 Politicians are notoriously brave when they are a) retiring b) when they are in the minority c) actually believe in what they are fighting for d) know they will be defeated/choose to retire, so you have to ask: why do they wait so long? This leads me to the current bipartisan gun legislation. Of the 10 Republicans involved, 4 are retiring at the end of their terms. Not having to worry about the NRA or Second Amendment or Die folks, certainly frees them up to vote their conscience and have a meaningful legacy. For the other 6, their re-election cycles are far enough off that they feel they can do "something" as people have been asking them to do (also most are at an age where retirement is not out of the question). 

But what will that something look like? It certainly does not look like raising the age of people owning semi-automatic assault-like rifles or banning those weapons again (as happened in 1994) is part of the agenda. On the other hand, enhanced background checks for buyers under the age of 21 and measures to close the so-called "boyfriend loophole," which would prevent domestic abusers from owning guns are likely to be helpful. Still, if we are trying to reduce gun violence in schools and items in the House-passed bill, the "Protecting Our Kids Act," which includes the prohibition of the sale or transfer of semi-automatic firearms to people aged under 21, a federal statutory framework to regulate ghost guns and new federal criminal offenses for gun trafficking, were met with widespread opposition by the GOP.

So it would seem that bipartisan also means the bill with the least resistance to pass--which also means that the parts that are not terribly helpful. For instance, arming teachers or putting armed guards in schools will be seen as wins by gun lovers, but another loss of freedom for school kids. And this is what frustrates the public, our leaders have power, and choose to use it to address the periphery, but not the problem of too many guns in the hands of people who believe they are justified in using them. This is the elephant in the room and it isn't leaving.

Same Old Song and Dance

 Nineteen elementary school-aged children were murdered in a classroom along with two teachers and an additional 15 people were injured when an 18-year-old gunman entered an elementary school in Uvalde, TX with a newly purchased semi-automatic weapon. As parents mourned and struggled to understand, politicians sent out the usual thoughts and prayers and President Biden asked rhetorically, "Why do  we let this keep happening?"

Why, indeed? Why should schoolchildren be targeted in this way? Why should guns that can shoot thirty rounds at a time be legally sold? Why should politicians pray for the dead while doing so little to keep people alive?

The outrage that 4th-grade children should so easily be mowed down in a town of 16,000 is horrendous. The fact that the gun used in the killings was able to be purchased by a kid without so much as a lesson, a license, or parental permission is hard to fathom. Also, where were the police? Why did it take an hour for a tactical unit with the tools/equipment to be assembled and show up at the school? 

Now, here we are two days later and already the handwringing is subsiding. Already we are being told that legislation will take a while. In the meantime, people in Uvalde are burying their young, including the gunman, and trying to make sense out of the nonsensical. And sure, we can keep pointing that the fact that gun violence in the US is so wildly out of control compared to our western nation neighbors. And sure, we can point at the gun lobby and their outsized power over the political leaders in our states and country and how their money is paying for the deaths of innocent people most every day. And sure, we can point at ourselves and the frustration that we have both for those who think the 2nd Amendment means that everybody should be toting a gun and those who think there should be very strict requirements for possessing them. But, if we really do believe in the sanctity of life, we have to decide how that is going to coexist with a culture that celebrates guns and violence.

In the meanwhile, the National Rifle Association will still be holding its convention today in Houston, three days after the shooting in Uvalde. The governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, was supposed to be there in person but will now provide a video welcome. His opponent, Beto O'Rourke, who was at Abbott's press conference pressed him the day after the shooting on taking action to deter future massacres. The governor was mute while O'Rourke said, “The time to stop the next shooting is right now and you are doing nothing. This is on you, until you choose to do something different. This will continue to happen. Somebody needs to stand up for the children of this state or they will continue to be killed, just like they were killed in Uvalde yesterday."  Also in the US Senate, “Is Texas the tipping point? Is this what we’ve been waiting for?” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said on CNN, hours before the Senate was to vote on whether to advance the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2022. The answer was a resounding no as the bill was not passed by the 60 votes needed. Indeed, it is the same old song and dance.

All Politics Are "Yokel"

Rural Johnson County Road Sign via Flicker

 The title of this is intentionally facetious and is from the late long-time leader of the House of Representatives, Tip O'Neill who famously said "all politics are local." Iowa is swept up in a sea of red at the statewide level. As a rural state with a handful of urban outposts, the prospects for Iowa to bask in a blue wave are somewhat limited. Part of the reason is messaging and the other is authenticity in the redder parts of our state. 

Rural Iowa currently does not love Democrats, and why should they? Look at the signs along the farm fields, in the small towns and you will see how effective Republican, Christian right, pro-life and business issue-pushers have been to date. Let's face it, it is a tough row to hoe to change the minds of people whose own politics embrace keeping things the same (or turning back the clock to the "better days").

Nonetheless, there are truly independent and more center-leaning voters in these red counties who are not walking lock-step with their neighbors and Democrats will need to cultivate them, as they are likely to stay at home otherwise. But to get out this group of voters, Democrats need to meet them where they are and tell them why their vote matters. Also, as these voters may not be as progressive as their city cousins, the message has to be genuine and to the heart of the matter. Democrats cannot plow these Iowans, they have to be willing to go slower and easier to build trust with these voters. No small task for a party whose left flank is pushing hard for decisive change which centrists have to warm to.

It would be a good start to post signs that challenge the notions, such as the one pictured here. As we know, Republicans have down a fair share of taxing the poor more and spending on subsidies for the wealthy and connected. Why don't the Democrats invest in better messages for the less indoctrinated? 

Also, as we have seen in my county, it is possible to be both a rural Iowan and progressive. Jon Green, the County Supervisor and the former mayor from Lone Tree, and Seth Zimmermann, a candidate from Solon, are competing for a couple of seats this June and neither of them is Iowa Farm Bureau supported. But both want to make sure rural land is conserved, the water supply is clean, and pesticides are limited.  And neither of them might otherwise stand a chance in a county that is highly non-rural except that this is an area of rapid growth and they have a vested interest in how that growth goes, as do their neighbors and those who recreate away from the towns. Their knowledge of the rural area gives them both credibility and authenticity and sways some of the more right-leaning folks to vote for them. I am aware of other candidates, such as Kevin Kinney who is a state senator and farmer who also represents a more rural district and is up for re-election. He refers to himself as a "Dirt Road Democrat" and he walks that walk authentically by growing corn and soybeans, raising cattle, as well as fighting for better pay for Iowa's teachers.

Iowans deserve better than laws and policies that harm the very fabric that the state is created from. Democrats can be fuller-throated in supporting policies that preserve the land and water, help teachers to teach, and take care of the family farm. If Iowa is to ever have a Harold Hughes or a Tom Vilsack acolyte as governor, Democrats are going to have to convince rural Iowans that they also have their backs.

Throw the Right Bums Out

 

Political Cartoon is by Rex Babin in the Sacramento Bee.

In American politics, there is a tradition in the mid-terms to punish the party that won the last election because they didn't deliver as promised. For the record, I think that is as good a reason as any to replace those who need replacing, but there are no guarantees that things will get better as a result. You see, throwing the bums out often means bringing new bums in. And it also means awarding "points" to the other side that they didn't earn and may have helped cause through voting and working in opposition of the presiding party's policies. 

Concretely, when the Republicans sat out on things like Build Back Better, they cut off their noses to spite their faces, because economic development generally is one of their chief jams. However, because inflation is on the rise, they are likely to get a pass and be rewarded because of people voting with their wallets. They did nothing to help people get better jobs, but they didn't "cause" inflation--therefore it is all the other party's fault. Do you see how that works?

Now, in Iowa, we have  Republican leadership, and, given that inflation is also rampant in Iowa, shouldn't that leadership be flailed in the next election? That same leadership that is underfunding schools and their teachers, is more focused on transgender kids not playing sports. The same leadership who shortened unemployment benefits for Iowans by 10 weeks and is almost forcing Iowans to take less well-paying jobs believes they should be rewarded for it. The same leadership that sent highway patrol officers to guard the US border to keep immigrants out but kept meat processing plants open while many immigrant workers died believes it earned the right to keep doing more of the same. Bum-like decisions, if you ask me.

There are bums and then, there are bums. Both sides have got 'em. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Synema are bums by holding up things like voter's rights. Majorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz are bums because of the nationalistic fomenting. Predatory Matthew Cawthorn would continue being one had he not been beaten in his primary. Kim Reynolds and Chuck Grassley are bums. Kim Reynolds wants to push out someone from her own party because they don't want to do school vouchers in their district. Chuck Grassley wanted to hang Joe Biden about the shortage of baby formula when he voted for the USMCA that added tariffs for imports and lessened the supply of it. Pretty bum-like behaviors, wouldn't you say?

At this time, when people are working harder and losing value on the money they are earning, we need better than the present group of bums. In Iowa, there is a primary coming up. The Democrats have three people who want to replace Chuck Grassley in the senate--the DNC would love for their candidate to be the choice (for those of you who remember how that went last time when Bruce Braley ran with their blessing, it wasn't pretty). This time the quality choice might be a retired Navy admiral who is right on the issues and does not have the baggage of winning and then losing a seat in Congress. In many parts of the state from the Board of Supervisors on up, there are competitive races that could well decide how this state is run for the next several years. It is actually a really good time to both be an educated voter and active in turning out the vote.

Turning things around doesn't happen overnight, but as the last presidency assures us, a lot of damage can be done in four years with the wrong bums. If we are going to be in the business of throwing out the bums, shouldn't we at least aim at throwing out the right bums?