Two Things Biden Could (And Should) Do Before Leaving Office

On January 20th, President Biden's term in office will end. But there is still time to do some good things for the country. Kirsten Gillibrand and Rick Steves give us a couple of those things. They write: 

Make the Equal Rights Amendment part of the Constitution
By Kirsten Gillibrand

With Republicans set to take unified control of government, Americans are facing the further degradation of reproductive freedom.

Fortunately, Mr. Biden has the power to enshrine reproductive rights in the Constitution right now. He can direct the national archivist to certify and publish the Equal Rights Amendment. This would mean that the amendment has been officially ratified and that the archivist has declared it part of the Constitution.

The amendment is concise: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

The amendment would make discrimination on the basis of sex — like restrictions on reproductive care that single out women — unconstitutional, including, in my view, abortion. We’ve seen the potential of this approach; courts in several states with E.R.A.s have cited those amendments in striking down state prohibitions on Medicaid-funded abortion care.

The E.R.A. has met the requirements for certification — it passed two-thirds of Congress in 1972 and was ratified by three-quarters of the states as of 2020. Only a flawed Trump Justice Department memo prevented its certification as a constitutional amendment. The memo contended that the E.R.A. is no longer valid because it failed to meet the seven-year deadline that Congress initially set and then, when the ratification effort fell three states short, extended until 1982.

But the deadline was meaningless. The Constitution says nothing about a deadline for amending it.

No doubt this would be argued in the courts; right-wing legal challenges would follow the archivist’s certification and publication. But there is strong legal backing for our position. Mr. Biden should act now to protect reproductive rights and make the E.R.A. the law of the land.

Pardon people convicted of nonviolent marijuana offenses
By Rick Steves

Mr. Biden has taken historic steps to address America’s outdated and failed federal marijuana policies. In October 2022 he pardonedthousands of people convicted of marijuana possession under federal law, and last week, he granted clemency to around 1,500 people, including some nonviolent drug offenders. His administration has proposed a rule change that would reclassify marijuana — which currently shares the same classification as heroin — as a drug with a lower potential for abuse. But he can still do more.

Gallup polls have consistently shown that a significant majority of Americans support marijuana legalization. And on the campaign trail, Mr. Biden said that “no one should be in jail because of marijuana.” But his October 2022 pardons applied only to people convicted of marijuana possession, not those convicted of selling or distributing marijuana. In the final weeks of his term, he should pardon all Americans who have federal convictions for nonviolent marijuana-related crimes, and he should commute the sentences of every single person who is sitting in federal prison today for those offenses. It’s the right thing to do.

If He's Broken The Law, Trump Must Be Indicted And Tried

Donald Trump is being investigated by several entities for possible breaking the law -- the city of New York, the state of New York, the state of Georgia, and the U.S. Department of Justice. And it looks like one of those entities is close to issuing an indictment -- the city of New York.

This has the talking heads on cable news going crazy. They're saying that an indictment would anger Trump's followers, and possibly result in violence (similar to the January 6th riot). They're saying it would represent a low point in American history having a former president put on trial. And they're saying it might make Trump more popular (helping him to again be nominated by the Republicans).

They may be right about all of that. But that is NOT a good excuse to not indict and try Trump for breaking the law. If he has broken the law (and I believe he has), then he must be indicted and tried.

It must happen to uphold the rule of law, and once again establish equality under the law for all citizens. A failure to do so would mean that we have a two-tiered justice system -- one for the rich and powerful and another for the rest of America. 

While it is true that the rich have an easier time in our courts than the poor, that is something that we have fought against as a country. Refusing to indict and try Trump would make a mockery of that battle for equal justice.

We cannot allow the wealth or popularity of any individual to determine how they will be treated under the law. And we cannot allow threats to determine whether a lawbreaker will be punished or not. 

We are at a national cross road. Do we believe in the rule of law or not? Do we believe all men/women should be treated equally under the law or not? If we choose the latter in either case, we will do serious damage to our democracy.

Will Voters Choose Economics Or Democracy?

The following is just part of an excellent op-ed by Charles M. Blow in The New York Times:

I have seen repeatedly how people abandon their principles — whether they be voting rights, transgender issues, gun control, police reform, civil rights, climate change or the protection of our democracy itself — when their pocketbooks suffer. There is a core group of people who will feel singularly passionate about each of these problems, but the rest of the public adjusts itself to the outrage and the trauma, shuffling each issue back into the deck. They still care about these problems as issues in the world, but they don’t necessarily see them as urgent or imminent.

In a New York Times/Siena College poll released this week, voters were asked “What do you think is the MOST important problem facing the country today?”

A plurality, 26 percent, said the economy, and 18 percent said inflation or the cost of living. Just seven percent said the state of democracy, and four percent said abortion.

After the Supreme Court struck down Roe, Democrats saw a measurable shift in their direction, as voters began to say that they were leaning toward the Democrats in the midterm elections. The anger among many voters was palpable; the offense was fresh. But now, that momentum has stalled, and some see a swing back toward Republicans as we get further out from the ruling and worrisome economic news retakes the headlines.

I still believe that anger over abortion will be felt in the midterms. I believe that taking away such a fundamental right feels like a betrayal that must be avenged. I believe that many parents of daughters are incensed at the idea of those girls inheriting an America where they will have less say over their bodies than their mothers had.

But I also know that energy attrition in the electorate is real. I know that historical trends are on the side of Republicans going into the midterms, and even a minor stalling of momentum and erosion of energy could make the already slim chance that Democrats would hold the House of Representatives an impossibly long shot.

In the closing days of this campaign cycle, Republicans are driving home perennial issues: the economy and crime. Democrats are arguing big issues of policy: abortion and protecting democracy. In this battle of pocketbooks and principles, which will win out?

For those with any sense of political vision and history, the policy side must take precedence. Economic issues are cyclical. They’ll always present themselves. But grand issues like bodily autonomy can define generations. And protecting democracy can define empires.

What is the point of a cheaper tank of gas, if it must be had in a failed democracy that polices people’s most intimate choices about their own bodies?

Supreme Court Denies Full Rights To U.S. Territorial Citizens

 

The residents of U.S. territories do not have the same rights as those living in U.S. states, and sadly, the Supreme Court doesn't seem to care. Congress needs to fix this since the Court won't.

The following is part of an article by Paul Blumenthal at Huffpost:

The Supreme Courtdeclined to take a case challenging its 100-year-old racist precedents that continue to deny equal rights to the 3.6 million residents of overseas U.S. territories on Monday.

Three American Samoans living in Utah and a Samoan nonprofit petitioned the court in Fitisemanu v. U.S. to overturn the Insular Cases, the court’s early 20th-century precedents that enabled the country’s colonial expansion by allowing it to absorb overseas territories populated by non-white peoples while denying them equal rights or a path to statehood.

“It’s a punch in the gut for the Justices to leave in place a ruling that says I am not equal to other Americans simply because I was born in a U.S. territory,” John Fitisemanu, the lead plaintiff in the case, said in a statement. “I was born on U.S. soil, have a U.S. passport, and pay my taxes like everyone else. But because of a discriminatory federal law, I am not recognized as a U.S. citizen.”

The Insular Cases that deny people like Fitisemanu equal rights as citizens were explicitly founded on racist premises. The cases, which occurred from 1901 to 1922, claimed that the people of the overseas territories the U.S. conquered in the Spanish-American War came from “savage tribes” and “alien” and “uncivilized race[s]” who were “absolutely unfit to receive” the rights provided by the Constitution. The court invented a new legal class of “unincorporated territory” for the colonial possessions taken from Spain that denied them equal rights and statehood.

Today, the Insular Cases still govern the U.S. overseas territories of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In each territory, Congress has negotiated different rules for people’s access to their rights as Americans.

For example, unlike other territorial inhabitants, American Samoans are not officially U.S. citizens, but American nationals. This means that even if they move to a state or the District of Columbia, they will be denied the right to vote. This was one of the chief complaints made by Fitisemanu and the other plaintiffs in the case.

Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor are the only justices known to support overturning the Insular Cases. 

Fitisemanu v. U.S. challenged the constitutionality of the Insular Cases by arguing that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause grants U.S. citizenship to all people “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” As these territories are both a part of the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction, the residents of the territories ought to be granted full access to that citizenship, the plaintiffs argued.

For years now, territorial residents have sought to loosen the grip of the Insular Cases or overturn them entirely through the courts. In each case, the courts have refused to do so.

The Republicans Have It Backwards On Wealth And Rights

Two things that make a huge difference in a country are wealth and human rights. The Republican Party has it backwards on both.

Republicans want you to believe that human rights is like a pie. They say that when one group earns a right they never had before, another group will lose some degree of that right. Of course, that is not now, and never has been true. 

This lie is done by those who want to maintain the white patriarchy in this country. When minorities achieve a right that white men have always had, no one loses anything. It just means that rights are equally recognized under the law. White men don't have less rights when nonwhites and women get more rights.

What they have less of is white male privilege -- an unfair advantage that they never should have had.

Republicans also have it backwards on wealth. They want you to believe that when the rich get richer, it benefits everyone in society, because much of that increased wealth will "trickle down" to those on lower economic levels -- the middle class, working class, and the poor.

This has always been a lie also. Wealth is like a pie, because there is a finite amount of wealth in a country at any given time. When one group gets a larger percentage of that wealth, all other groups must share a smaller percentage.

Note the chart at the top of this page. It shows the percentage of wealth that certain groups have had in the United States between 1990 and 2019. Note that as wealth has grown for the top 10% (and especially the top 1%0, the percentage has shrunk for the bottom 90% (and especially the bottom 50%).

They want you to believe that as the wealth of a country grows, that new wealth benefits everyone. That also is not true. Thanks to the GOP laws benefitting the rich, they currently get almost all of that growth in wealth, while the rest of the country must share only a tiny percentage (and most see no growth at all in their wealth).

As long as the Republicans stay in power (or at least retain enough power to block any changes in economic policy), it will stay this way. The rich will get richer, while the bottom 90% does not (and actually loses ground when inflation is considered).

It does not have to be that way. Before the Republicans re-instituted their Trickle-Down Economic Theory about 1980, rising wealth was fairly equally shared among the sectors of U.S. society. As productivity rose, it benefitted everyone. It could be that way again. But fairer economic policies cannot be achieved while the GOP has veto power. They only care about the rich.

The same is true about human rights. Equal rights will not be achieved as long as Republicans have a veto power over them. In fact, they are currently engaged in trying to take rights away from many (like women, LGBT community, and nonwhite voters).

We could have a country where equality in rights and fairness in economics was a fact. But it will only happen when Republicans are voted out of power (and Democrats feet are held to the fire). We have the power to fix this, but only if we vote!

GOP Wants To Destroy Right To Privacy (And Equal Rights)

 Recently, Republicans in the Senate have made it clear what they want to do. They want to put justices on the Supreme Court that would overturn the Griswold vs Connecticut decision. Griswold was the court decision that recognized the right to privacy of every American. Once they destroy the right to privacy, they can then ban contraception, ban abortion, ban same sex marriage, and probably once again make being LGBT a crime. This would kill equal rights for women and the LGBT community. 

Here's part of how Dean Obeidallah describes this GOP agenda at MSNBC.com:

One day before Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearings began, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., released a video in which she unironically denounced liberals for wanting Supreme Court justices who will be “a rubber stamp for their cultural agenda,” while declaring that the 1965 Supreme Court decision that legalized a right to birth control was “constitutionally unsound.” Who says conservatives can’t be funny?

But Blackburn wasn’t trying to be amusing. She was simply repeating the view that has been building for years on the right: that the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which legalized access to birth control, needs to go. But Griswold stands for so much more than birth control — and that’s why Republicans want to see it overturned.

In the 7-2 Griswold v. Connecticut decision, the court recognized for the first time a constitutional “right to privacy,” which it found was violated by the state’s law that made it a crime to encourage people — in this case a married couple — to use birth control. From there, this “right to privacy” would be expanded in later Supreme Court decisions to extend beyond married couples to other personal liberties. Griswold became the building block for other noteworthy Supreme Court cases that much of the GOP disapproves of, from Roe v. Wade in 1973 to the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision that ruled state laws banning “homosexual sodomy” were unconstitutional to the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

The courts in these landmark cases expressly relied on the Griswold court's recognition of a “right to privacy” in reaching their decisions. In Lawrence, for example, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in explaining the court’s rationale that “the most pertinent beginning point is our decision in Griswold.” From there, Kennedy explained that “the reasoning of Griswold could not be confined to the protection of rights of married adults,” thus invalidating “a Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct.”

This desire to overturn Griswold and potentially reverse later decisions that relied upon it is not new. During the 2012 presidential campaign, Rick Santorum slammed Griswold, saying the decision “created a new right, which in my view is judicial activism." Mitt Romney echoed that sentiment during that same campaign. And in 2019, the National Review published an article titled “The Farce of Griswold v. Connecticut,” in which the author argued that Griswold was “among the most indefensible bits of jurisprudential acrobatics in the entire American legal tradition.” He went on to make the case that Roe was wrongly decided since it relied on Griswold.

Now there seems to be a renewed push to achieve this, perhaps due to conservatives having a 6-3 advantage on the current Supreme Court. This helps explain Blackburn’s video and Indiana Sen. Mike Braun’s comments earlier this week slamming Griswold. It’s also why just last month three GOP candidates for Michigan attorney general denounced Griswold during a debate. As Matthew DePerno, the Donald Trump-endorsed attorney general candidate, declared: “Griswold, Roe v. Wade. Dobbs — these are all state right issues. ... It’s going to be a state right issue on all of these things — as it should be!”

The GOP is telling us that its goal is to overturn Griswold so it can then enact state laws consistent with its grotesquely reactionary views, from pushing to ban abortion to possibly criminalizing the LGBTQ community. . . .

Republicans are moving closer to utter control of every part of our lives based on these extreme beliefs, from banning books to banning school curricula on Black history (under guise of racist bans of “critical race theory”) to banning transgender girls and women from school sports to banning discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity in schools. They are now telling us their next goal is to overturn Griswold, along with the cases that relied on its reasoning, in the hope that it enables them to ban abortion, curtail access to birth control, ban marriage equality and even criminalize being gay. These are the stakes. The question is if enough people opposed to the GOP’s oppressive agenda are paying attention.

LGBTQ Rights Gains More Support With The U.S. Public

 

These charts are from the Public Religion Research Institute. They show the results of surveys done in March, June, August, October, and November of 2021. They questioned 22,612 adults nationwide, and the margin of error is a minuscule 0.8 points.

The survey shows that public support for equal rights for LGBTQ individuals continues to grow among the general public.

Equal Rights Amendment Has Been Ratified - Is It Valid?

The Equal Rights Amendment (giving women rights equal to those of men) has finally been ratified by the appropriate number of states. That should make it officially the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution. But sadly, now there is a dispute over how long it took for enough states to ratify it -- and some say that means it is not valid. 

Here is just a small part of how Jesse Wegman describes the controversy in The New York Times:

Even if you are a political junkie, there’s a good chance you didn’t realize that the United States Constitution grew 58 words longer this week. 

Those words, which begin, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex,” are the text of the Equal Rights Amendment. Section 3 of the amendment states that it takes effect two years after its ratification, which happened on Jan. 27, 2020, when Virginia became the 38th state to sign on. By its own terms, then, the 28th Amendment went into force on Thursday. American women are, at long last, equal to men in the eyes of the law. Hallelujah.

Or maybe not.

New printings of the Constitution will not include a 28th Amendment. The Supreme Court will not treat it as part of the nation’s fundamental law. There will be no command from on high that women and men must be treated the same. And yet on Thursday, President Biden called on Congress “to act immediately to pass a resolution recognizing” that the E.R.A. has been properly ratified and is part of the Constitution. What’s going on?

The argument that the E.R.A. is now the law of the land is straightforward and compelling. Under the explicit terms of Article V of the Constitution, an amendment “shall be valid to all intents and purposes” when two-thirds of both houses of Congress approve it, followed by three-quarters of the states. The E.R.A. easily passed Congress in the early 1970s, and it has been ratified by 38 states, or just over three-quarters of 50.

“The Constitution is clear: You need to do two things. We did it,” Representative Carolyn Maloney of New York, a longtime E.R.A. proponent, told me. Indeed, no amendment that has cleared Article V’s two high bars has ever been excluded from the Constitution — until now.

The technical reason for this is that the archivist of the United States, David Ferriero, has declined to certify the Equal Rights Amendment, despite a federal law requiring him to do so whenever an amendment has satisfied “the provisions of the Constitution.”

His refusal is based on a 2020 memo by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which provides legal advice to the executive branch. The memo contended that the E.R.A. is no longer valid because it failed to meet the seven-year deadline that Congress initially set and then, when the ratification effort fell three states short, extended until 1982. (The last three states — Nevada, Illinois and Virginia — all ratified after 2016, spurred by the election of Donald Trump.) The O.L.C. memo also noted that five states that approved the amendment later tried to back out by rescinding their ratifications. As a result of the missed deadline, the memo said, the E.R.A. “has expired and is no longer pending before the states.” If its supporters want it ratified, they need to start over.

The supporters’ retort: The Constitution says not a word about either deadlines or rescissions. It says two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of the states, nothing more. In a 2012 letter to Ms. Maloney, Mr. Ferriero appeared to agree with this interpretation. As soon as at least 38 states have ratified an amendment, he wrote, the National Archives publishes the amendment along with his certification “and it becomes part of the Constitution without further action by the Congress.” He also said he did not consider any of the rescissions to be valid.

But following the 2020 Justice Department memo, Mr. Ferriero balked, triggering our current constitutional conundrum. Complicating matters further, the O.L.C. on Wednesday issued a new memo that called into question the reasoning of the 2020 memo and stated that “whether the E.R.A. is part of the Constitution will be resolved not by an O.L.C. opinion but by the courts and Congress.”

The E.R.A. has thus become the Schrödinger’s Cat of amendments — simultaneously part of and not part of the Constitution.

There is much more, and it's well worth reading.

The Dream Of MLK, Jr. Has Not Been Fulfilled In America

In 1963, during the March on Washington, Martin Luther King gave a speech that is not remembered as one of the great oratorical moments in U.S. history. In that speech, he said:

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, one day right down in Alabama little Black boys and Black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today.

That was a wonderful dream. And a couple of years later, it seemed like America was on the way to seeing the dream fulfilled. In the mid to late 1960's, President Johnson pushed three civil rights bills through Congress and signed them into law. Then we saw voting rights bills passed with majorities of both parties. And in 2008, the nation elected its first Black leader -- President Barack Obama.

Obviously, much progress had been made, and many in the country assumed the progress would continue. But that assumption has proved to not be accurate. The progress toward equality scared a lot of racists and white supremacists, and sadly, they numbered in the millions. They had taken control of the Republican Party, and while too many voters stayed home on Election Day, they were able to elect one of their own to be president.

This emboldened them to come back out in the open. Violence against minorities became more common -- both in the police and in the public at large. This could have been fixed, but Republicans on both the state and national level, following the wishes of their orange demagogue, blocked efforts to protect rights and lives.

Then, after losing the 2020 election, the GOP racists began to pass laws to suppress the voting rights of many Americans -- especially people of color. Most of this occurred in red states, but it was protected by Republicans in the national government. Their dream is to reinstate their white supremacist leader (Donald Trump).

Progress is no longer being made towards assuring equality of all Americans. In fact, it seems like we are regressing. But regressing or just standing still, one thing is certain -- Dr. King's dream has not been realized in the United States, and there are many determined to keep that dream from being fully realized.

This should be unacceptable to all who believe in the American Dream, and Dr. King's dream. We must rededicate ourselves to achieving equality for all Americans in all areas of our society.

No Compromise Between Authoritarianism & Democracy

How can anyone compromise between democracy and authoritarianism, or between equal rights and white supremacy? You can't! There is not middle ground between those concepts -- and it's time for the mainstream media to realize that.

Here's how former Labor Secretary Robert Reich puts it on his own blog:

The mainstream media has historically tried to balance left and right in its political coverage, and present what it views as a reasonable center. 

That may sound good in theory. But the old politics no longer exists and the former labels “left” versus “right” are outdated. 

Today it’s democracy versus authoritarianism, voting rights versus white supremacy. There’s no reasonable center between these positions, no justifiable compromise. Equating them is misleading and dangerous.

You hear the mainstream media say, for example, that certain “Republican and Democratic lawmakers are emerging as troublemakers within their parties.” These reports equate Republican lawmakers who are actively promoting Trump’s big lie that the 2020 election was stolen, with Democratic lawmakers who are fighting to extend health care and other programs to help people. 

These are not equivalent. Trump’s big lie is a direct challenge to American democracy. Even if you disagree with providing Americans better access to health care, it won’t destroy our system of government. 

You also hear that both sides are gripped by equally dangerous extremism. Labeling them “radical left” and “radical right” suggests that the responsible position is somehow between these so-called extremes. 

Can we get real? One side is trying to protect and preserve voting rights. The other side is trying to suppress votes under the guise of “election integrity.”  

But there isn’t and never was a problem of “election integrity.” The whole issue of “election integrity” in the 2020 election was manufactured by Donald Trump and his big lie about voter fraud, and was bought and propagated by the Republican Party. 

Today’s Republican Party is behind what historians regard as the biggest attack on voting rights since Jim Crow, but the media frames this as a right-versus-left battle that’s just politics as usual. Equating the two sides is false and dangerous.

Or compare the coverage of Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, on one hand, with the coverage of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar on the other. You’d think they were all equally out of the mainstream, some on the extreme right, some on the extreme left. That’s bunk. 

Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, in addition to spreading dangerous conspiracy theories, harassing colleagues, and promoting bigotry, don’t actually legislate or do anything for their constituents. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar both organize to help everyday people, deliver for their constituents, and have pushed legislation to provide universal school meals, expand affordable housing, and combat the climate crisis.

Equating all these lawmakers suggests that the responsible position is halfway between hateful, delusional conspiracy theories on the one hand, and efforts to fight white supremacy, save the planet, and empower working people on the other. 

It’s similar to what the media did following Donald Trump’s infamous condemnation of “both sides” after the deadly violence sparked by neo-Nazis and white supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017. In the ensuing weeks, America’s six top mainstream newspapers used just as much space condemning anti-Nazi counter-protesters as they did actual neo-Nazis.

But research shows white supremacists pose a significantly graver threat than those trying to stop them. White supremacists are animated by racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of bigotry, violence and hate. 

Battling white supremacy is not the same as advocating it. Passing laws to prevent voter suppression is not the same as passing laws to suppress votes. Fighting for our democracy is not the same as seeking to destroy it. 

The media equating both sides, one “left” and one “right,” suggests there’s a moderate middle between hate and inclusion, between democracy and proto-fascism. 

This is misleading, dangerous, and morally wrong. Don’t fall for it.

House Passes The LGBTQ Equality Act

 The House of Representatives has passed the Equality Act. This bill would give members of the LGBTQ community the same rights that other Americans have. It would prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in areas such as employment, housing, education, public accommodation, credit, and jury service. Only three Republicans voted for the bill.

Most Republicans voted against it. They claimed it violated First Amendment rights (such as freedom of religion). Of course, that argument is ridiculous. No religion mandates the breaking of federal or state law, and if it does, then it's not the religion of love (as christians and other religions claim). Any religion that permits discriminating against others is a religion of hate -- not love.

The House passed this bill in 2019 also, but Mitch McConnell was the Majority Leader in the Senate at that time and he refused to allow the bill to be debated or voted on. He's no longer in charge in the Senate, but the bill may still have a tough time in that body. It will require 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster -- which means that 10 Republicans will have to support it.

It seems it should be a given to me that all Americans should enjoy the same rights under the Constitution. But Republicans (and the evangelicals that support them) don't agree. They feel they should have the right to force other people into following their own weird version of morality. But that's not freedom. And the primary goal of this nation is the freedom of its citizens -- all of them.

Bigotry is Un-American -- even if you claim its basis is religion.

Voters Disagree With Trump About Race And Justice

The charts above reflect the results of the new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between August 30th and September 1st of a national sample of 1,209 registered voters, with a 3.6 point margin of error.

Donald Trump doesn't seem to think this country has a racial problem. In fact, by demonizing the people protesting against police brutality and for equal justice, he is making the problem worse.

Fortunately, the voting public is smarter than that. They know that racism is a serious problem in the United States. They also know that minorities don't get equal treatment in the justice system. And they know that the police don't treat Blacks the way they treat Whites. And they want the situation fixed!

Trump is trying to scare Whites into voting for him (much like Nixon did in 1968). But this is not 1968, and most Whites want a system that is fair to everyone. I think Trump is making a big mistake by appealing to racism in Whites. The racists are very vocal, but they are no longer a majority.

In His Eulogy Of Lewis, Obama Calls Americans To Action

Barack Obama gave a powerful eulogy at the funeral of John Lewis. If you did not see it, I urge you to do so, or read the transcript. You can access it in The New York Times.

Obama gave a moving tribute to the heroism of Rep. John Lewis -- a heroism he exhibited throughout his life.

But Obama went further. He called on Congress and the American citizens to take action -- not only to honor Lewis, but to save the democracy that is now in danger.

Here is just the part of the speech where he calls for action:

Bull Connor may be gone. But today we witness with our own eyes police officers kneeling on the necks of Black Americans. George Wallace may be gone. But we can witness our federal government sending agents to use tear gas and batons against peaceful demonstrators. We may no longer have to guess the number of jelly beans in a jar in order to cast a ballot. But even as we sit here, there are those in power are doing their darnedest to discourage people from voting — by closing polling locations, and targeting minorities and students with restrictive ID laws, and attacking our voting rights with surgical precision, even undermining the Postal Service in the run-up to an election that is going to be dependent on mailed-in ballots so people don’t get sick. . . .

Like John, we have got to keep getting into that good trouble. He knew that nonviolent protest is patriotic; a way to raise public awareness, put a spotlight on injustice, and make the powers that be uncomfortable.

Like John, we don’t have to choose between protest and politics, it is not an either-or situation, it is a both-and situation. We have to engage in protests where that is effective but we also have to translate our passion and our causes into laws and institutional practices. . . .

Like John, we have got to fight even harder for the most powerful tool we have, which is the right to vote. . . .

You want to honor John? Let’s honor him by revitalizing the law that he was willing to die for. And by the way, naming it the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, that is a fine tribute. But John wouldn’t want us to stop there, trying to get back to where we already were. Once we pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, we should keep marching to make it even better.

By making sure every American is automatically registered to vote, including former inmates who’ve earned their second chance.

By adding polling places, and expanding early voting, and making Election Day a national holiday, so if you are someone who is working in a factory, or you are a single mom who has got to go to her job and doesn’t get time off, you can still cast your ballot.

By guaranteeing that every American citizen has equal representation in our government, including the American citizens who live in Washington, D.C. and in Puerto Rico. They are Americans.

By ending some of the partisan gerrymandering — so that all voters have the power to choose their politicians, not the other way around.

And if all this takes eliminating the filibuster — another Jim Crow relic — in order to secure the God-given rights of every American, then that’s what we should do.

And yet, even if we do all this — even if every bogus voter suppression law was struck off the books today — we have got to be honest with ourselves that too many of us choose not to exercise the franchise; that too many of our citizens believe their vote won’t make a difference, or they buy into the cynicism that, by the way, is the central strategy of voter suppression, to make you discouraged, to stop believing in your own power.

So we are also going to have to remember what John said: “If you don’t do everything you can to change things, then they will remain the same. You only pass this way once. You have to give it all you have.” As long as young people are protesting in the streets, hoping real change takes hold, I’m hopeful but we cannot casually abandon them at the ballot box. Not when few elections have been as urgent, on so many levels, as this one. We cannot treat voting as an errand to run if we have some time. We have to treat it as the most important action we can take on behalf of democracy.

Like John, we have to give it all we have.