INDIVISIBLE Lambertville NJ / New Hope PA

Author: Indivisible Lambertville / New Hope

  • The Dark Age of the Trump Court

    Evidence of Trump-nominee for the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh’s often dangerous, pro-business bias runs as a common thread in his judicial positions on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Examples include scrapping regulations that protect trainers working with captive killer whales; that control coal-fired power plants, spewing pollution into neighboring states; and preventing internet monopolies from pushing out smaller rivals. His controversial nomination is triggered by the sudden retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who cast the deciding vote in favor of gay marriage. Replacing Kennedy’s swing vote with Kavanaugh’s harsher stance “…will continue a trend toward widening America’s power and wealth gap,” according to the New York Times editorial board. As it is, the Times observes, “The court has given big business a leg up on workers, unions, consumers and the environment.”

    Today’s increasingly conservative Supreme Court caps a 50-year rightward trajectory from the pathbreaking Warren Court, which ruled from 1953 until 1969. Under Chief Justice Earl Warren, an Eisenhower appointee, the Court reversed some of the worst injustices of the notoriously oppressive McCarthy era. It also heralded positive social change, such as school integration and expanded civil liberties (think Miranda Rule, granting those arrested the rights both to remain silent and to an attorney), a time when more enlightened federal power held sway over state’s rights. Focused on the Bill of Rights, Warren favored strong ethical principles – such as “one-man, one-vote” – and fostered an inclusive society that protected minorities.

    Subsequently, the Burger Court (1969 – 1986) put a brake on further liberalization, with some critical exceptions, such as Roe v Wade, which decriminalized abortion in 1973, upholding federal rule over state jurisdiction. Thereafter, the Rehnquist Court (1986 – 2005) and, now, Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr.’s Court (2005 – present) mark increasingly conservative rulings, promoting libertarian values and a strict-constructionist interpretation of our Constitution.

    With its emphasis on individual freedom over social good, libertarian ideals can yield varying results, ranging from support for gay marriage to looser gun controls, or to strongly pro-corporate policies that benefit the wealthy and lead to further income inequality and reduction of workers’ rights. A significant game-changing example is Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, granting corporations the ability to invest unlimited support for political campaigns, thus, eroding “one- man, one-vote” in favor of the mighty.

    Now, with the more authoritarian and socially conservative Trump regime taking hold, it is generally expected that progressive decisions are likely to cease and possibly be reversed. We see this in the recent rulings upholding Trump’s Muslim ban, granting employers the right to deny workers reproductive care, and weakening the clout of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), which, as our nation’s largest union, raises the bar for working conditions and wages. (Perhaps not incidentally, AFSCME has long been a major donor to the Democratic Party.)

    Supreme Court justices can serve for life and make decisions that overrule Congress and all lower courts, hence, the power and influence of 53-year-old Kavanaugh could be far reaching. His nomination is boosted by massive funding from the Koch brothers, the Judicial Crisis Network, and pro-lifers, who are pressuring Democratic representatives in Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, and West Virginia to vote in favor. For their part, NARAL Pro-Choice, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Demand Justice, and Indivisible are leading the charge to defeat Kavanaugh.

    While our democracy rests on a sturdy tripod, dividing power between the Court, the Congress, and the Presidency, that stability may prove fragile and potentially collapse. If Trump’s tyranny grows, our top court could bend to the ruling party, as seen in China, Russia, and more and more nations around the world. Reflecting back to the McCarthy era, not only were dissidents, including actual and suspected US Communist Party members, persecuted and imprisoned, but the volunteer lawyers who defended them were, at times, immediately handcuffed and jailed, without due process, following the conviction of their clients.

    Spearheading that investigation was Roy Cohn, who served as chief counsel to Senator Joseph McCarthy during the “Second Red Scare” and later, prosecuted Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, sending them to the electric chair for treason. Cohn, a master manipulator, went on to represent and mentor Trump during his early years in business. (Cohn’s career ended and soon after, his life, when he was disbarred for unethical conduct in 1986.) Now, echoing McCarthy’s stance, Trump’s propensity for draping himself in the flag, while deriding the free press and all who dare to criticize him, bodes ill for our independence.

    Our democracy is what we make it! #SaveSCOTUS

    CALL TO ACTION:

  • How Shall We Impeach Thee? Let Us Count The Ways!

    Remember when the Republican party rabidly pursued the impeachment of Clinton for obstruction of justice and perjury? To date, there are five charges against Trump. Trump is impeachable for the following charges filed against him which include, but may not be limited to: obstruction of the administration of justice, lack of disclosure of financial and real estate holdings, violation of Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, and seeking to undermine the independence of the federal judiciary by criticizing judges who ruled against him.

    It’s complicated, but let’s see if we can make some sense of the impeachment process.
    The steps to impeachment process are this:
    1. Investigation of the charges against Trump. Robert Mueller is the independent counsel tasked with investigating the charges which will then be presented to the House Judiciary Committee. The House Judiciary oversees the next six steps.
    2. Review of the evidence
    3. Draft the articles of impeachment
    4. Debate the articles of impeachment within the House Judiciary Committee
    5. Debate the articles with the House of Representatives.The Senate will hold a trial to determine if the president will be removed from office. Herein the president will lawyer up, the Senate will act as the jury and the Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court will rule on the evidence.
    6. A two-thirds majority of the Senate must vote against the accused in order to impeach the president. For more info click here
    Since the inauguration, experts have stated that Trump is in violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution which, “prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states without the consent of the United States Congress.” The emoluments clause is to “shield the republican character of the United States against so-called “corrupting foreign influences.” Click here for more on the emoluments clause.

    Trump has refused to either divest from his businesses or establish a blind trust. Essentially, Trump is profiting off of the presidency through payments to his businesses from foreign countries that utilize his facilities, such as Trump International Hotel, for example.

    In March, a ruling by U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte in Maryland, establishes for the first time that the plaintiffs have legal standing to sue the president. That is to say,“ Messitte gave credence to arguments by D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D) that Trump unfairly profits from business at downtown Washington’s Trump International Hotel, in which the president continues to hold a financial interest.”

    Last week, a Federal judge denied Trump’s filing to dismiss the Emoluments Clause case against him and therefore the case will move forward. Racine, the attorney who filed the suit states, “We sued because this corruption is taking place in our backyard, and because 325 million Americans shouldn’t have to wonder if the president is putting his personal financial interests ahead of the national interest.”

    Aside from impeachment, bribery, treason and conviction are reasons to remove a president from office. One thing is for sure, Democrats must motivate voters to go to the polls for the November midterm elections. Flipping the House is of utmost importance if the impeachment process is to come to fruition. Until such time, like it or not, we are stuck with him.
    For more information:

  • Farms and No Food? – SNAP and the 2018 Farm Bill

    What is the Farm Bill?
    The farm bill is an “omnibus” piece of legislation that combines funding for a lot of different programs into one piece of legislation. The first farm bill was passed in response to the dust bowl in the 1930s and was meant to increase farm incomes and encourage conservation. Since then, the farm bill has grown in scope to include other programs, and would reauthorize various commodity, trade, rural development, agricultural research, and food and nutrition programs. Under the current farm law, program authorizations will expire Sept. 30 or the end of the applicable crop year.
    Historically, the farm bill has passed with considerable bipartisan support, but in recent years it has become more contentious as Republicans have ramped up their attempts to enact sweeping changes to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP that may make it harder for people struggling to make ends meet to get food assistance.
    Current Status of the 2018 Farm Bill
    In May, the House version of the Farm Bill was defeated when 30 Republicans voted with Democrats to defeat the bill. On June 21, the House passed the bill by a narrow margin – 213-211. Democrats were unanimous in their opposition to the bill over severe cuts, new work requirements and expanded penalties for food stamp recipients. Twenty Republicans joined with Democrats in opposing the bill, but eight Freedom Caucus members flipped their votes from May and voted in favor of the bill.
    The Senate version of the bill passed out of the Agriculture Committee on June 13, with consideration by the full chamber expected before July 4. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a nonpartisan research and policy institute with a focus on reducing poverty and inequality, gives the Senate version a thumbs up for its handling of SNAP. According to the CBPP, the bill included a bipartisan nutrition title that would reauthorize the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) and improve SNAP’s program integrity and operations. The bill also would expand the 2014 farm bill’s pilot program to test promising approaches to job training and other employment-related activities for SNAP participants and would make targeted investments in SNAP that help seniors and people with disabilities, as well as Indian Tribes. And, the bill would make changes to and increase funding for certain grant programs outside of SNAP.[1]
    What’s Next and the Impact to SNAP
    While the Senate’s version of the bill may prove more palatable, the two bills ultimately need to be reconciled and currently there are wide differences – especially to the SNAP program. The House version seeks tighter work requirements for eligibility, increasing the work requirement age to 59 (from 49) and increasing penalties for those that fail to prove they’ve met the 20 hours per week work requirement with elimination of benefits for one year and up to three years. States also lose the flexibility to make the program easier for participants to use.
    This is part of a larger push to radically transform federal assistance programs. Since Trump took office, Republicans in Congress and in the administration have been adding or tightening work requirements for programs like SNAP and Medicaid. These restrictions don’t do anything to help the people served by these programs, but they do result in more people falling into poverty as the protections they rely on are stripped away.
    House Republicans have been playing a cynical game in selling their partisan farm bill. They say it has no SNAP cuts. Don’t be fooled: the House Agriculture Committee farm bill would cut or take away SNAP benefits from 1.5-2 million people, and we expect that amount will be much higher if it became law. Thousands of children would also risk losing their enrollment in free and reduced-price school meal programs.
    It’s important to stay tuned to what’s happening as it unfolds on a near daily basis. If a final bill isn’t authorized before the deadline of September 30, most likely there will be an interim extension.
    It’s also important to note that this enormous bill also has ramifications for renewable energy programs, the environment, small local farms and markets, and much more.
    For more information, read the CBPP’s report on the Senate version of the bill here, and read the organization’s statement on the detrimental impact of the House bill passed June 21 here.
    Call to Action:
    Leonard Lance and Brian Fitzpatrick voted against the House bill, breaking with party lines. The Senate still needs to call a floor vote, so determine your Senators’ stance on the Senate version, which is generally agreed to be more supportive of SNAP. Watch carefully as the bill goes into reconciliation – and demand that the final bill expand support for SNAP, lighten work requirements as well as provide flexibility for states to re-assess or waive work requirements in times of hardship or low job availability. Finally, any job training programs should be effective and applicable to employment opportunities that are available or can be made available within a reasonable geographic area of a recipient’s residence, and not just drain dollars from the program while for an unwieldy, bureaucratic ‘jobs’ program with an ineffective outcome.

  • America’s Shame: “What About the Children? Part II”

    A quick re-cap of the June newsletter Hot Topic “What About the Children?”

    • Sessions issued a “Zero-Tolerance” policy. Per Sessions, this policy is to deter migrant families from crossing the border. Even if families are seeking asylum the parents will be taken to the Customs and Border Protection facility where their children will be removed from their custody. It is unclear how the children are being tracked and/or reunited with the parents once their parents cases are heard and adjudicated.
    • Separate from this issue are the unaccompanied minors. Minors who cross the border without their parents are processed by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). It is unclear how the system is tracking their whereabouts once they are released to either foster care or other facilities.
    • Senator Feinstein (D-CA) introduced S.3036 The Keep Families Together Act
    Since the June newsletter, an astounding 2,342 children have been forcibly separated from their parents by our government. It should be repeated that this policy is unique to this administration. No other administration has sought to separate children from their parents as a means to deter illegal border crossings.
    What is of dire concern are the ages of the children being separated from their parents. Babies as young as 8 months old have been removed from their mothers and sent to one of three “Tender Age” facilities. Doctors visiting shelters in South Texas’ Rio Grande Valley said, “the facilities were fine, clean and safe, but the children — who have no idea where their parents are — were hysterical, crying and acting out. Many of them are under age 5, and some are so young they have not yet learned to talk.” – AP News
    It’s highly questionable what the parents are being told about their child’s whereabouts once taken from their custody. It’s been reported that parents are told that their children are being taken for a bath and then not returned. This smacks of Nazi history repeating itself. It is also highly concerning how unaccompanied minors as well as those who are undocumented are being treated at secretive facilities unknown to the public. Almost daily there are reports of abuses from within the facilities and also within the foster care homes. – Children Allege Grave Abuse at Migrant Detention Centers
    ORR states that children are typically placed on average within 57 days. ICE states that they have set up a hotline for adjudicated immigrants to call to help locate their children. However according to attorneys working for such cases, “there is no formal process or clear protocol for tracking parents and children within the system and that chaotic systems and inadequate record keeping make it difficult even to know which facility a child might be kept at.” – NPR
    As of Wednesday June 20, in an attempt to appear the hero for a situation created by this very administration, Trump signed an Executive Order that will stop the separation of families at the border. However, there is no clear protocol for how to reunite the 2,342 children with their parents. The EO also states “to hold families indefinitely until prosecution.” It is illegal to hold children indefinitely in detention centers therefore his EO is in direct violation of the U.S. law.
    The backlash to protest Trump’s “Zero Tolerance” policy needs to be unabashedly swift and loud. Peaceful civil disobedience is the order of the day and must remain until this STOPS. Call your congressman. Write your congressman. We can not allow children to be separated from their parents at the border nor allow children to be held indefinitely in violation of the Flores Settlement Agreement. Not now. Not ever.

     

    TAKE ACTION NOW

    Call the following Senators and Congressman

    Rep. Leonard Lance (R-NJ), Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA), Senator Collins (R-ME), Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Senator John McCain (R-AZ) Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

    Call (202) 224-3121 and say, “My name is… I am from the state of…. I implore you to support bill S.3036 The Keep Families Together Act. Despite the recent rescission of Trump’s Zero Tolerance policy that will allow families to stay together, there is no reasonable protocol that states how long the government may hold the family. The EO states, “To hold families indefinitely until prosecution.” Not only does this violate the Flores Settlement agreement, it’s inhumane, unacceptable and a violation of international human rights laws. DO THE RIGHT THING! SUPPORT BILL S.3036. It is IMPERATIVE that you DO NOT support Ted Cruz’s bill to detain children beyond 20 days at the border. Thank you for your time.”

    The following Senators from NJ and PA are in support of the Keep Families Together Act:Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Senator Bob Casey (D-PA)

    Call your district representatives who support The Keep Families Together Act at (202) 224-3121 and say “My name is…. I am a constituent from your home state of …. Thank you for supporting The Keep Families Together Act. Despite the recent rescission of Trump’s Zero Tolerance policy that will allow families to stay together, there is no reasonable protocol that states how long the government may hold the family. The EO states, “To hold families indefinitely until prosecution.” Not only does this violate the Flores Settlement agreement, it’s inhumane, unacceptable and a violation of international human rights laws. Again, thank you for your support and your time.”

    You can also send this message to your congressman and senators via Resistbot text “resist” to 50409.

  • Independence Day: Celebrating Dissent in America

    Dissent is one of this nation’s defining characteristics. Every decade since the earliest days of colonization Americans have protested for just about every cause imaginable, and every time they did, defenders of the status quo denounced the protestors as unpatriotic and in more recent times as un-American. But protest is one of the consummate expressions of “Americanness.” It is patriotic in the deepest sense.

    We are a product of dissent. During the seventeenth century religious dissenters like Quakers and Puritans played a significant role in the planting and development of the English colonies. In the eighteenth century political dissent led to the open rebellion that resulted in the birth of the United States. And the founding fathers were so aware of the role of dissent that they placed that right prominently in the First Amendment of the Constitution. In the nineteenth century dissenters demanded the abolition of slavery, suffrage for women, fair treatment of Native Americans, and the rights of workers to organize. And they protested against the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War (on both sides), and the Spanish-American War. In the twentieth century dissenters have continued to demand rights for workers, women, African Americans, Chicanos, gays, immigrants, and all minorities, as well as protesting against every war (declared or undeclared). And since the election of 2016 dissenters have vehemently protested against the new administration’s blatant attack on the ideals upon which this nation was founded.

    The methods and forms of dissent are wide-ranging. Many protesters express dissent through petitions and protest marches. Some use their talent, whether music or art or theater or athleticism or comedy to articulate their message. Some engage in acts of civil disobedience, willfully breaking laws to put pressure on the system to force those who have political and economic power to acknowledge and address the issues. They have sought more equality, more moral rectitude, more freedom. They have demanded that America live up to what it had committed itself to on paper at the Constitutional Convention. Many of these dissenters have viewed the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as binding contracts between the people and the government and protested when they believed the government was not fulfilling its part of the contract. They are pushing the United States to be what it professes to be. Is this not the highest expression of patriotism? To try to make the reality of present-day America more closely resemble the ideal image we have of ourselves.

    So when Colin Kaepernick famously took a knee during the national anthem to protest the violence and racism that is embedded in our society he was acting in this long tradition of dissent. (He was certainly not the first athlete to use his position in society to make his voice heard. Muhammad Ali, John Carlos, Tommie Smith were among many who preceded him.) And when critics denounce him as unpatriotic I would advise them to look a little more closely at the complex history of this nation. The dissenters, I would argue, are truly more patriotic than those who denounce them for expressing their desire that the United States live up to its exalted ideals.

    Note: The above piece is from ILNH member, Ralph Young, history professor at Temple University and author/expert on Dissent in America. He sent this piece while on a lecture tour in Germany. Look for excerpts from the upcoming paperback edition of his book, Dissent: History of an American Idea in future newsletters.