Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Trump’

President Trump has announced he is not going to attend the White House Correspondents Association Dinner this April. Some mainstream journalists have said that the dinner is a relic that should be discarded. I respectfully dissent on both counts.

It’s not news that the President’s relationship with much of the mainstream press is seriously dysfunctional. He distrusts journalists and they distrust him. This contrasts with the veritable fandom that greeted the last President.

For decades, the WHCA dinner has offered one night when a president and his erstwhile tormenters could lay down their arms, have a meal and a little fun before returning to battle the next day. That appears to be more needed than ever this year. It is ironic that this is the year some media folks are saying it should end. During the Obama years, the dinner was just one more opportunity for hero worship. NOW, when the President and the press are at each others’ throat, is when the dinner serves a purpose.

Rather than have the President skip the dinner, the WHCA should consider having a comic who is less likely to lambaste Mr. Trump. Most major comics these days seem to feel it is their moral duty to ‘speak truth to power’ by ripping President Trump (and this after leaving the President Obama virtually untouched for eight years). Someone like Adam Carolla or Bill Burr is likely to spray comic abuse upon the whole room, rather than raining down exclusively on Mr. Trump. If the Association is graceful enough to invite a fair-minded comic and the President finds the grace to attend, it may do the town and the country some good.

– 1TF

Read Full Post »

For the past ten months following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, the Supreme Court has been at eight members. The Republicans refused to even hold a hearing for Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee. Now that the election is over, Garland’s nomination appears dead and the Republicans are eagerly awaiting President-elect Trump’s new choice for the ninth position. But Trump should actually consider making three nominations and calling for Congress to authorize and appropriate funding for eleven spots on the bench.

Mr. Trump should look at this action for three reasons.  First, it would give the Democrats something. Two of the nominations could be Republicans – one a red meat conservative pleasing the right, the other a moderate conservative. The third, could be an olive branch the Democrats – Merrick Garland himself. Republican opposition to Garland was never about Garland himself. He is a distinguished, moderately liberal, well-respected jurist that Senate Republicans had previously said they could support.

Second, it gives Trump something – the appearance as a powerful reformer not beholden to the way things have been done in the past. There would be predictable accusations of Czar Trump court-packing a la FDR, but that criticism is misplaced and could be handled, especially if one of the three nominees is Garland. First, FDR sought to add six justices, and it was clearly for ideological reasons. In this case, Trump would be looking to add just two, and if one was Garland, the ideological complaint falls apart. Instead of a 5-4 advantage, the justices would have a 6-5 advantage.

Third, it acknowledges and deals with the fact that this is an increasingly diverse country, and that for such a heterogeneous populace, nine members may not be enough. There are more than 300 million people in this country of all races, ethnicities, religious beliefs and ideological leanings. Yet look at our court. Racially, the court is six non-Hispanic whites, one Hispanic white, one black, no East Asians, no South Asians, no Arabs, no Slavs, etc. Religiously, it is five Catholics (three practicing/two cultural), and three Jews (two practicing/one cultural), no mainline Protestants, no evangelical Protestants, no Muslims, no Hindus, no open agnostics, deists or atheists (although there has been some indication there may be one or more quiet ones.) Educationally, four justices graduated Harvard Law School, three graduated Yale, one graduated Columbia, none graduated Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Virginia or any of the other eight elite law schools, not to mention any of the other 300 law schools. There is a lack of diversity in life experience in the justices.

For these reasons – extending an olive branch to the Democrats, doing something clearly bold for his legacy and compensating for the increased diversity of the electorate – President-elect Trump should look at making three nominations to the Supreme Court.  Yes, some will justifiably express concern about increased cost, but that cost (a few offices, a handful of clerks, a tighter fit around the table, etc.) is modest and can be offset by cuts in less important parts of the government.  Few parts of the federal government are more important than the highest-level of its third branch.  Some will also, unjustifiably say this is unconstitutional.  However, tradition and statute, not the Constitution, have fixed the number of justices on the Supreme Court, and those can be changed more easily.  By giving both sides something and preparing the Court to serve an increasingly diverse and complex populace, President-elect Trump can make a bold step toward healing the political wounds opened by Justice Scalia’s untimely passing.

1TF

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »