By Kenneth Tiven

Proof that America is a conflicted nation is reflected by how you interpret two just announced 6-3 Supreme Court decisions.  

On GUN RIGHTS: The ability to carry a loaded gun in public for “personal protection” expands by redefining the intent of the Second Amendment.

ON REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: A woman’s ability to choose an abortion as a family planning option is severely restricted by gutting the Roe v. Wade decision from 50 years ago, once considered “settled law.” 

Both of these issues kept many voters emotionally tied to former President Donald Trump as his three court appointments shifted the Supreme Court’s ideological balance in the direction they wanted.

The half of the nation disappointed by the Court’s 17th-century view of interpreting the Constitution cannot escape that this happens as Trump is out of office. There is  irony with the concurrent probe into the January 6 insurrection revealing the former president to be a major player in planning the coup in violation of his oath of office. The 21st-century electronic evidence and sworn testimony from his associates demonstrate his culpability.

Regardless of what happens to Trump, his role in changing the federal courts will be his legacy. It is proof that elections have consequences. The protests and response to this will impact a nation already struggling with sharp ideological differences heading toward November elections.

The reality of these legal decisions accomplishes a multi-decade effort by Republicans to shift the Supreme Court away from the use of ”stare decisis,” the legal concept that prior decisions have relevance in ascertaining the validity of new cases. The abortion decision is not surprising, as a draft of Justice Samuel Alito’s reasoning leaked several weeks ago. He told his Senate confirmation hearing in 2005 that he viewed the abortion rights landmark as an ‘important precedent.’ Seventeen years later, he changed his attitude with a strident opinion that four colleagues signed.  

The three liberal justices —two are women—strongly dissented, charging that the majority failed to consider how abortion rights shape the fabric of women’s lives.

Their dissent says the Court should overturn earlier precedents only upon changes in legal doctrine. When the earlier decisions were only a few years old and didn’t have the chance to set many precedents, or when fundamental changes make the earlier decisions obsolete. “None of those factors apply here: Nothing — and in particular, no significant legal or factual change — supports overturning a half-century of settled law giving women control over their reproductive lives.” Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan wrote rather bluntly, “The Court reverses course today for one reason and one reason only: because the composition of this Court has changed.”

In Alito’s view, “fear that our decision will imperil” rights to contraception access, same-sex marriage, and sex with members of the same sex were “unfounded.” However, Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, said the Court should “reconsider” rulings that protect contraception and same-sex marriage based on privacy rights under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. 

So, the abortion case reflects a religious and ideological position that the rights of a fetus begin at the moment of conception. Supporters of this position define themselves as “Pro-life.” Many have scant recognition of any contradiction with expanding the right to carry guns in public when firearms violence spikes and the killing of school children is alarming.

While violence may have a lot to do with mental health issues, the easy purchase of guns does not help. The Supreme Court struck down a 100-year-old New York State law that set a high bar for people to get conceal-carry permits. The state required permit-seekers to prove that they faced more significant risk than usual when out in public. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the right to bear arms includes a right to carry a gun for self-defense purposes outside the home under the Second Amendment.

His decision reflects his belief that only gun regulations consistent with historical regulation of guns are permissible. Where does that leave Red flag laws and computerized sales databases, all of which are modern inventions? Domestic abusers did not often appear in 17th and 18th-century legal cases. Today banning their gun rights are the result of society moving in new directions on human rights.

This week the US Senate passed a modest set of regulations to control gun sales in the wake of a Texas mass shooting that also involved failures by law enforcement. The House quickly passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act by a vote of 234-193, with 14 Republicans joining every Democrat in supporting the bill. President Biden’s signature is guaranteed. The gun lobby contributes significant money to politicians, and you can see that 193 of them are aware of this. However, the new Second Amendment interpretation by the Court spells trouble for any gun regulation at the state or federal level that might reduce the affection for guns and violence in America. Gun makers and sellers are safe.

—The writer has worked in senior positions at The Washington Post, NBC, ABC and CNN and also consults for several Indian channels

By Kenneth Tiven in the USA

The impeachment trial of former president Donald Trump ended with a vote against conviction but with a surprise post-vote public admission by the Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell that, “Trump is morally and practically responsible” for the insurrection.

McConnell’s vote for acquittal was based on jurisdiction, he said, because his interpretation of the Constitution’s impeachment clause requires removal from office. He implied that many in his Republican caucus agreed because with Trump out of office he couldn’t be convicted. Decisions using a process issue rather than the substantive issue are commonplace in 21st century American politics.

The final vote was 57-43, considered an acquittal because a super majority of the Senate as Jury — or 67 votes– is required for conviction.  Impeachment is a constitutional matter, not part of the criminal code of the United States. Trump’s trio of lawyers spent a good deal of time whinging about the lack of traditional courtroom process while substantially misstating facts. Their style channeled their client rather well.

Lead impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin said nothing Democrats did with evidence or witnesses would have made a difference based on McConnell’s almost confessional post-trial statement in the Senate. McConnell has been bossing these Republicans around for twelve years as Majority leader and they generally do what he tells them to do.

 Of the seven Republicans voting for conviction, two are retiring in 2022, and only Lisa Murkowski of Alaska might seek reelection in 2022. She has bucked the Republican Party before winning in 2010 as a write-in candidate. Mitt Romney is up in 2024 and three others were just reelected to terms that expire in 2026.  Senate terms are six years long but staggered by thirds on the calendar, ostensibly to promote continuity in the Senate,

Will Republican voters remember that McConnell said “… Americans beat and bloodied our own police. They stormed the Senate floor, they tried to hunt down the speaker of the house.”

Many voters were apolitical until Trump’s grievance campaign reflected their unhappiness with life and politics. They may not like McConnell faulting the insurrectionists: “They did this because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on earth… A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name… carrying his flags and screaming their loyalty to him. It was obvious that only President Trump could end this.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, called the Republican senators cowards, criticizing McConnell for refusing to call an emergency Senate session in mid-January for impeachment while Trump was still in the White House but then using the trial’s delay as a reason to acquit Trump.

Discussions about calling witnesses stemmed from a Republican Congresswoman recounting House Minority leader Kevin McCarthy telling her he asked Trump “to publicly and forcefully call off the riot.” Trump responded that antifa, not his supporters, was responsible. When McCarthy said that was not true, the former president was curt. “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,” McCarthy told Jaime Herrera Beutler  a six-term representative from Washington State.

Ultimately the Democrats and Republicans agreed to put her comments into evidence but not call witnesses. Republicans threatened hundreds of witnesses that could have stretched this trial out for months.

The fourth presidential impeachment trial in American history is over. There are limited precedents as this the first time a president had left office before the trial. As has happened numerous times before, Trump, escaped a legal problem on a technicality, even when the case involves a violent effort to overthrow the government.  His exposure in criminal and civil lawsuits suggests that he will need lawyers for the foreseeable future.

Now perhaps the Congress can get moving quickly on issues related to the economy, the COVID-19 pandemic, immigration issues, so much to deal with in the wake of four years of Trumpism, a good deal of it with close cooperation from then majority leader McConnell.   When Sen. Chuck Schumer, who became Senate Majority leader with a 50-50 senate, spoke after McConnnell and offering this warning:

“Heed his words, ‘remember that day forever’, but not for the reasons the former president intended. … Remember the screams of the bloody officer… his body trapped in the breach… remember the three Capitol police officers who lost their lives…remember how close our democracy came to ruin, my fellow Americans, remember that day January 6, forever.

Read Also: SCBA Election 2020-2021: Supreme Court Bar Association releases list of candidates

Kenneth Tiven

Just how angry President Donald Trump is with losing his presidential reelection was made clear Saturday in his own words when he spent an hour threatening the Georgia Secretary of State with vague assertions that would go away if only he would recalculate the state’s election count. The legal term is importuning: soliciting someone to commit a crime, which this call clearly seems to do. Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger says, “Mr. President, the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong.” Ryan Germany, his lawyer tells Trump your charges are wrong.

“I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have,” Mr. Trump implored in the call, a recording of which was obtained by The Washington Post. Excerpts from the audio were published on its website Sunday and played extensively on cable news channels, excepting apparently Fox News Channel and its website.

When Raffensperger said, “we believe that we do have an accurate election.” Mr. Trump responded: “No, no, no, you don’t, you don’t have, you don’t have, not even close. You guys, you’re off by hundreds of thousands of votes.”

Then the president suggested that Mr. Raffensperger could be prosecuted criminally.

“You know what they did and you’re not reporting it,” the president said. “You know, that’s a criminal — that’s a criminal offense. And you know, you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. That’s a big risk.”

Trump has tweeted and stated repeatedly that he lost only because of fraud. Despite the failure to win any of dozens of court cases he continues to push this narrative which polling suggests many of his stalwarts believe. All of this takes place as the Congress meets Wednesday for the pro forma confirmation of the Electoral College votes. In both house of Congress some Republicans plan to object, while others are critising their colleagues by name for foolishness. Questioning the validity of state certified electors is radical political theater, more a protest than a prayer. And yet, until the January 20 Inauguration there is a clear nervousness among Democrats and millions of Americans regarding Trump’s behavior in the final weeks of his tenure.

Trump, apparently aware that the audio tape was in media hands, tweeted on Sunday morning with a claim that “was unwilling, or unable, to answer questions such as the ‘ballots under table’ scam, ballot destruction, out of state ‘voters’, dead voters, and more. He has no clue!”

Also Read: Supreme Court stays demolition of Uttarakhand BJP MLA Pradeep Batra’s illegal construction for 2 weeks

A lifelong Republican, Mr. Raffensperger responded, “Respectfully, President Trump: What you’re saying is not true. The truth will come out.”

President Donald Trump’s decision to temporarily suspend new work visas has led to critics warning him that this would hold the US back and put its global competitiveness at risk

By Kenneth Tiven

The Trump Administration has spent three and half years deconstructing immigration to the US as a major aspect of its “America First” approach to political leadership. Its latest move has been to suspend new work visas—basically H-1Bs—which bring thousands of skilled people—many from India to the US. The suspension lasts until the end of the year. Court challenges are difficult because the president has by law unusual control over immigration.

Those already here on H-1B visas can file for an extension, which costs $370 per application. Business organisations have been aware of Trump’s decision to halt new visas and fought it, obviously unsuccessfully. Stephen Miller, the immigration adviser, argues that the coronavirus pandemic caused the economic collapse in the US, making it critical for these jobs to go to Americans. Business recruitment experts say workers from other countries fill jobs that Americans are not willing to do or are not capable of performing.

Ironically, Trump’s various business interests have regularly benefitted from these visas. The US Department of Labour files for Mar-a-Lago and two golf courses from the start of 2016 through the end of 2017 show that his hiring managers said they were able to find and hire only one qualified American worker—a cook—for 144 open positions. Seasonal workers on H-2B visas took the other 143 jobs.

With the hospitality business—hotels, golf, travel—in stupendous decline, Trump’s hotels may not need so many workers this year. For the president, this action is comparable to many others where the underlying rule is “do as I say”, not what I actually do.

The order applies to the following category of visas—H-1B, H-2B, H-4, L-1 and certain J-1s. H-1B visas are used for skilled workers and are used widely in the tech industry. It has brought thousands of skilled Indians to work in the US. H-2B visas apply to seasonal workers; H-4 visas are given to spouses of H-1B visa holders; J-1 visas are given to researchers and scholars, while L-1 visas are used for executives transferred to the US from positions abroad with the same employer.

The anti-immigration mindset of this Administration is such that it may never have considered the need for skilled workers, researchers and scholars in the middle of a pandemic and economic disaster.

Naturally, this move has attracted wide criticism. “Putting up a ‘not welcome’ sign for engineers, executives, IT experts, doctors, nurses and other workers won’t help our country, it will hold us back,” said Thomas Donohue of the US Chamber of Commerce.

 “This is a full-frontal attack on American innovation and our nation’s ability to benefit from attracting talent from around the world,” said Todd Schulte of FWD.us, a pro-immigration advocacy group for big tech companies.

Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google tweeted: “Immigration has contributed immensely to America’s economic success, making it a global leader in tech, and also Google the company it is today. Disappointed by today’s proclamation—we’ll continue to stand with immigrants and work to expand opportunity for all.” 

In a statement, Amazon said that “preventing high skilled professionals from entering the country and contributing to America’s economic recovery puts American’s global competitiveness at risk”. Facebook said that “highly-skilled visa holders play a critical role in driving innovation and that’s something we should encourage, not restrict”.

Twitter chairman Patrick Pichette, a Canadian, took a different approach: “A message to all you H-1B seekers; just look to the North, where we welcome you (and your family) with open arms.”

The Trump Administration’s leadership on Covid-19 has been criticised by political and civil society organisations for being late and lame. In the last month or so, the pandemic is picking up speed in geographical areas that didn’t take it seriously enough at the start. This casts doubt on the wisdom of early reopening efforts crucial to Trump’s claims for economic performance. There are nearly 40,000,000 people currently unemployed or under-employed because of efforts to combat the disease.

In the three months since admitting that Covid-19 is a problem, Trump has halted refugee resettlement, deported unaccompanied children fleeing violence and abuse, suspended some categories of legal immigration, closed the border to asylum-seekers and repeatedly pushed back court hearings for people awaiting them in Mexico.

Are these policies necessary to prevent the spread of covid-19 and to protect American workers from competition for jobs during the pandemic-related financial crisis? Actually, most of these immigration policies have been on the president’s to-do list since his first year in office.

The pandemic didn’t create a need for nativist immigration policies; it simply provided an excuse for them. Trump never hid his desire to blame other countries and close off US borders.

Meanwhile, several election indicators have turned negative on Trump. His campaign held its first arena-style rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma recently but fizzled out with modest attendance. Trump faced as many empty blue seats as red-hat fans. Two defeats in Supreme Court cases that Conservatives thought they’d win have left the Republicans wondering if their man is in trouble. When angry, he lashes out and this immigration change seems to be a distraction that appeals only to his diehard supporters.

—The writer has worked in senior positions at The Washington Post, NBC, ABC and CNN and also consults for several Indian channels

Lead Picture: India TV