079 – Some Thoughts on the Supreme Court’s Gerrymandering Decision, and About the First Democratic Debates (An Editorial)

The Democratic Debates

My wife and I watched most of the first two Democrat debates and they were interesting.  The 2nd night was definitely better than the 1st and I think that was in part because the 2nd night participants were able to watch and see how things went the first night, were able to process the comments that followed night one, and they were able to adjust.  Hearing all the comments about how no one on night one went after Trump definitely influenced the 2nd night participants.  Also, they certainly learned that they did not have to raise their hand to speak (everyone except for Andrew Yang, that is).

I was impressed by Corey Booker, Julian Castro and Elizabeth Warren on night one.  Also Amy Klobuchar, though she did not have a lot of interaction, but I do generally like her.

On night two, obviously Kamala Harris stood out.  I also liked Pete Buttigieg.  I was really glad to hear Buttigieg freely admit that he has tried but not succeeded so far in addressing the police/black resident problem in South Bend.  The “stick it, I’m always right even when I’m not ” approach of Trump is just so much garbage.

Unfortunately, that seems to be the approach Joe Biden is taking.  After he first made that statement about his bi-partisan work with those two segregationists, he could easily have nipped that in the bud right there by saying right away …

You know, you’re right.  I should have used better examples to demonstrate my bi-partisanship, because I disagreed so fundamentally with those two guys on their number one issue.”

Now that would not  have put to bed the questions regarding busing that have come up, but I think it would likely have completely eliminated that first issue.

Plus, Biden really should have been more ready to respond when Harris hit him with that attack on his previous busing vote.  It’s not like that had to come as any kind of surprise to him or to his campaign staff.

All that said, I would strongly recommend that Kamala Harris perhaps follow up on her challenge to Biden by stating that while she certainly disagrees with some positions on race which he previously held, she in no way means to compare him to those two, despicable segregationists, or most especially with Trump, whose words and actions shout each and every day …

I am a stone cold racist.”

I still think that Biden is also vulnerable when it comes to the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings which he chaired back in 1991.  Once again, Biden can legitimately be criticized for not ensuring that people who had supporting evidence to testify to regarding Hill’s accusations, were allowed to speak.  They were not allowed to speak even though they were there and ready.  Biden must accept responsibility for that.  We are still paying the price for the Thomas confirmation with each ultra-conservative decision issued over the past 28 years.

But once again, while Biden is not blameless, he should in no way be historically lumped with those contemptible Republican men who all put Anita Hill through that unbearable wringer.

 

 

The next debate on CNN will likely be a bit more of the same, given that much of the same criteria will determine the 20 participants.  Even though I don’t particularly care for the three candidates who did not qualify for the first debate (Bullock, Moulton and Messam (who??), they had to have been asking themselves …

Why the Hell is Marianne Williamson up there when I am not ?”

What should hopefully make the next debate a bit more interesting will be how the draws for each night shake out.  By that time, I expect Biden’s lead in the polls to have narrowed considerably, as well as the polling of Harris, Buttigieg, Booker and Castro to have improved.  I would expect at least two of them to be in the top four in the polls by the next debate – maybe even three if Biden or Bernie lose enough support.

 

The Gerrymandering Decision

The Gerrymandering decision by the Supreme Court was total partisan nonsense.  So the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over who decides state representation?  I can’t imagine that the courts were being asked to personally draw the actual district lines.  I agree that should NOT be the job of the courts – at any level.  However, it sure as Hell should also NOT be the job of the completely partisan state legislatures, either Democrat or Republican, especially the ones that have benefited so greatly from the current district layouts to get where they are now.

Redistricting should ONLY be the job of a bi-partisan elected commission, as it is done now in California and also in at least seven other states.

But for now, this decision leaves Democratically controlled legislatures around the country really with no other option than to Gerrymander the Hell out of their own controlled states until Democrats can somehow take over more state legislatures, or until we can once again get a non-Conservative majority on the Supreme Court.  If that can happen, then if the Republicans can bring Roe vs. Wade back to the Supreme Court for review, Democrats can certainly do the same for this Gerrymandering decision, as well as for Citizen’s United.

Advertisements