WHY BIBI MAY WALK WHILE TRUMP'S TASK IS HARDER

 

Both BibI Netanyahu and Donald Trump need political solutions to their legal problems. The Israeli Premier hopes to have already solved his by using his tiny majority in the Israeli Knesset while the former President Trump, in spite of all his repeated pleas to the “GOP” majority in the House of Representatives to “Stop It”, is floundering. The Don  still can be saved if elected President in18 months time. Currently he is the "GOP" front runner for their Presidential nomination who has already been charged with 72 felonies. If convicted of just one, 60 percent of Republicans, have, in repeated surveys, vowed not to vote for him. (Bibi’s advantage is he is the sitting Premier while former President Trump is trying to leverage his position as the leading candidate for the "GOP” nomination for the 2024 Presidential election).

Both the USA and Israel are liberal democracies so why is Trump more likely to be facing jail time while Bibi is in with a much stronger chance to escape? This in spite of the fact that they both are narcissistic authoritarians who believe they are in fact their countries. In fairness to the Israeli premier he is attempting a parliamentary coup with no extra legal conspiracies and force involved. In addition Netanyahu's alleged crimes pale in relation to Trump's. 

However the key objectives of both is to escape jail time at the expense of their countries democracies. One rationale they have in common is that they both argue who the hell are unelected bodies such as the judiciary to interfere with those whom the electorate voted for!

To start with one has to define the components of what constitutes a State and a “Liberal” democracy and how could each of these countries have differed in reaching this stage where contrasting strategies have been exercised to escape the rule of law. 

HOW IS A STATE AND A “LIBERAL” DEMOCRACY  DEFINED

Historically the state has been defined, largely arising out of the work of German sociologist, Max Weber, as having a defined space where the power was vested only in the ruling party. (Weber emphasized the difference between a patriarchal state where the ruler dished out the goodies to family and friends and a merit based one where the bureaucrats were elected on merit). 

A liberal democratic state according to the political scientist Francis Fukuyama must exhibit “accountability” and the rule of law. The latter ensures that everyone, including the leaders, were equally subject to justice before an independent judiciary. The latter can also place curbs on what they consider illegal or unconstitutional acts. For practical purposes free and fair elections of all the citizens assured “accountability” of the ruling party. 

Also a liberal democratic nation developed institutions which helped maintain the state’s integrity, safety and liberal democracy.

THE STATE AND A “LIBERAL” DEMOCRACY - AMERICA

America following the Declaration of Independence and the subsequent war against British colonial rule had a large run up to their formation of a nation state allowing time for the creation  of a Constitution with three components to government. (Not to mention that each State had jurisdiction in several areas). These components were:  The Legislative body which itself was divided into two separate chambers elected by differing constituency methodologies; the Executive Branch under a President whose office was indirectly decided upon by the whole electorate and the Judiciary which was in several layers but under the aegis of a Supreme Court. The latter members were nominated by politicians and had life long tenure. 

The nine person Supreme Court is still the final arbiter of what is the law and is the adjudicator of all issues. Its jurisdiction covers what is or is not constitutional. Biden has called the current Court “wrong” on a number of occasions but there is no way he would tamper with it without a “broad consensus”, which was his advice to Netanyahu when the latter mooted all the "reforms" he had for the Israeli Supreme Court. 

This layer upon layer of judicial chambers has been misutilized by Trump all his life, scaring would be creditors, delaying decisions by motion after motion, making appeal upon appeal and countersuing, all to the extent of having been involved in 4000 suits. In addition he has had close on 70 legal attempts at reversing the 2020 election. Trump was exempt from criminal prosecution while President because of a weird rule of the independent Justice department that does not allow arraignment of a sitting Commander in Chief. A law that does not apply to the Israeli Premier.

But now is not the time to go into detail of the deficiencies of the American system other than to say that as Trump is no longer President he is being held to account where he has been thus far been charged with 72 felonies in three separate cases. He is following the dictum of the McCarthyite lawyer Roy Cohn by filing repeated frivolous motions, appealing and delaying the processes to the extent of spending at least 56 million dollars on legal fees in the past eighteen months. So however labored the process may be Trump may not be able to avoid prosecution in at least a few trials before the election. Being convicted does not rule him out as a candidate but virtually puts paid to his chances of being elected President again. 

At the time of writing it appears that the conspiracy and obstruction trial involving Trump’s attempts to hang on to power has the most chance of moving quickly. (Blog: 6/13/23, “Trump Indicted for Espionage - What Now and Later?” ). The elegant indictment is straight forward and Trump is the only one charged for the conspiracy. The Judge in question has held several similar other trials of the insurrectionists of January 6, 2019 and has already had Trump asking for her recusal. She also appears impervious to attempts to delay the trial.

THE STATE AND A “LIBERAL” DEMOCRACY - ISRAEL

Israel was declared a state in 1947, 2 years after WW11, rising from the ashes of the Holocaust. The moment that happened the Arab world descended upon it like vultures swooping down upon a carcass. The war really started in earnest in May 1948 when the British mandate for Palestine finally ended. The UNO had initially declared partition between the Israelis and Palestinians. As with that war and every other, Israel ended up with more territory than they started with. 

After the rag bag army in what was called “The First War of Independence” triumphed in 1949, the accent was on survival. There was not time for years of “Federalist Papers” and the like and prolonged debate about a Constitution. The Knesset or parliament was to be constituted on the basis of proportional representation of the large number of parties in Israel which is the situation to this day. A court system was gradually set up with the Supreme Court at the top. And that was that as the post war refugee Jews were accommodated in Israel together with what was and still is a 20 percent Arab population.

In the 75 years that followed Israel made remarkable progress and was considered an island of liberal democracy in a sea of authoritarian governments in the Middle East. It bounded ahead pioneering the purifying of sea water to drinking water and notably created  a high tech center considered second only to Silicon Valley. As the years rolled by the left wing Labor Party was ousted by the right wing Likud Party. Bibi Netanyahu was a rising star ever since the mid nineties to the extent that after the assassination of peace seeking Rabin he was accused of fomenting the environment in which it occurred. (Jay H. Ell has written often about Bibi who was to dominate Israeli politics in the second millennium. His most recent blog on April 5, 2023 was entitled,“Why Netanyahu Folded and What Is Next”). 

It is fair to say that initially Israel made every attempt to create a two party solution with what had to be the most generous offer in 2000 when Ehud Barack, according to Bill Clinton, gave into every Palestinian demand. In that proposal nearly a 100 percent of the  West Bank would be ceded to the Palestinians. Attempts were made on both sides thereafter till this day but gradually opinions hardened. The only bright spot after the turn of the millennium was when Ariel Sharon, a right wing Israeli Premier, ceded the well established Gaza to the Palestinian upending 21 Israeli settlements in the process. For his troubles the Iran sponsored Hamas took over and turned the territory into a hotspot for terrorist activities. 

In fairness to the Palestinians they have remained a political football for the powers in the Middle East. The leader of the Palestinians in the West Bank for decades and successor to Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas has no control of the territory not having held an election for a decade and a half. His impotence was on display when he was powerless to influence the Israelis from tearing up a refugee camp in pursuit of terrorists. Israel’s grip on the West Bank territory has grown tighter and tighter and Netanyahu’s current government has no intention of ever aspiring to a two state solution. 

All the while Israel’s tenuous liberal democracy held. There were regular fair and free elections and the Supreme Court provided equity regularly intervening on behalf of Palestinian rights and axing excesses by whoever was the ruling party. It developed, from Anglo Saxon courts, the concept of “unreasonable actions”. (The principle is also utilized in the judging of quasi judicial bodies such as professional medical bodies where a supervising court may disagree with the former’s decision but as long it was “reasonable” they would not reverse it). There are three examples of decisions where the current Netanyahu coalition are at odds with decisions that might be deemed “unreasonable” by The Court -  to appoint felons to the cabinet, allowing the government to fire and or ignore the Attorney General’s injunctions and that no group should be exempted from military conscription. 

Netanyahu did the unthinkable in the aftermath of the 2022 election, the fifth in four years, when he formed a coalition with the Religious Zionist Party who were hell bent on creating more Settlements and taking over the West Bank and the fundamentalist Haredi Parties, who wanted a law that legally exempted their children from conscription and that their schools need only teach religious studies with no science, math, English or civics. Bibi got his narrow majority by making promises to get the latters’ support. Now only the Supreme Court stands in his way. 

There was only one reason why Netanyahu would have risked the Israeli economy and why he was in sync with limiting the power of the Supreme Court which would inter alia allow him to get rid of the prosecuting Attorney General. He has to hope that the Supreme Court will defer to the elected representatives of the Knesset and not overturn the Knesset's decisions.

RESPONSE TO NETANYAHU’S MOVES

Bibi announced a range of "reforms" of the Supreme Court but the unbelievable protests that took place week after week as well as pressure from Biden and the international money markets made him hold back for thirty weeks on the first of the many laws that would emasculate the court.  With no Constitution to fall back on the only other accountability and check on the ruling coalition, who with the barest of majorities were committed to change the country from a liberal democracy to an authoritarian one, was the populace who delivered in spades. Besides the hundreds of thousands protesting every week, a the most recent survey shows that almost 70 percent of the Israelis are against tinkering with the authority of the Supreme Court.

The Premier was finally able to introduce one of his "reforms" namely that the Supreme Court was no longer able to use "unreasonableness" as a criterion for axing a Knesset decision.

There is one other factor that maintains a liberal democracy and that is its institutions. There are no more revered Israeli establishments than the armed forces and intelligence agencies, such as the internal - Shin Bet, military - Amman as well the famed Mossad. Every living past head of all these armed forces and intelligence entities, except one, condemned the right wing legislative coup. The Defense Minister originally was fired when he warned that the reservists were threatening not to report for duty. The current Chief of Staff of the armed forces sort, in vain, an urgent meeting with the Prime Minister for four days prior to the vote. The Police Chief resigned rather than use force to control the protestors.

Like, with the strikes even by doctors and the monumental protests, which served to protect the respectable international standing of the nation state, nothing helped. Bibi adjourned the Knesset till October when his coalition partners vowed to continue with “judicial reform”. 

Besides the Supreme Court which Jay H. Ell will get to in a moment, Biden has a moon shot plan presented via the New York Times famed opinion writer Tom Friedman. The latter wrote that the USA President was in the process of negotiating a defense  deal between the USA and Saudis which would include recognition of Israel. Conditional too was an agreement on the Settlements and  the ultimate independence of the Palestinians, (currently not a viable proposition). Bibi would then have to form a government with the opposition sans the fundamentalists). This would not keep Bibi out of jail and is unlikely. 

Otherwise the ball is in the Supreme Court as the massive protests roll on. 

SEPTEMBER AND THE SUPREME COURT AND THE CONSEQUENCES.

One month prior to the Knesset returning in October, The Supreme Court has to consider momentous decisions. First and foremost they have to consider whether the negation of the “Unreasonableness” law contravenes basic Civil and Human rights and should be voided. There are also petitions as to whether there is a conflict of interest between Bibi being Premier while his trial is proceeding and finally the legality of the Justice Minister refusal to convene the appointments committee of the Supreme Court.

The outcome of these trials will dictate the immediate future of Israel and could even result in  Civil War. The key institutions will no doubt uphold the law. But which law? The law of the minority government in the Knesset or that of the Supreme Court? 

AT THE END OF THE DAY

Democracies are fragile and can be manipulated as Trump and Netanyahu have shown.

There is only one worse outcome for both Israel and USA than charging their leaders and that would be not to hold them responsible.

WHY BIDEN 2024?

It is trite to argue that the outcome of the 2024 Presidential elections will have a pivotal effect on the future both in the world and the USA. However explaining why the next President of the United States should be Joseph H. Biden, when his approval rating is in the low forty percentage range, appears to be an uphill task. This especially as Trump one way or another sucks up all the oxygen in the room, to the extent that even his “GOP” rivals for nomination cannot get in a word in edgeways.

 To the frustration of even Biden’s own supporters he has not started campaigning in earnest for 2024. He raked in a record 72 million dollars, mainly small contributions, in the first quarter since announcing, only spending one million of it. That is the way Biden works. He beat Trump from his basement in 2020 and allowed him to run against himself. The desperate fourty- fifth President, leading the pack of the transformed Republican Party, is obliging in spades. 

However if Biden is judged by his actions, he fits the bill in this period of history. A situation that he describes as an “inflexion” point. Just looking at his achievements he should be a “shoo In” but the outcome is still in the balance with Biden ahead by a few points against the likely “GOP” contender, Donald J. Trump.

Biden is contending with a populist direction that so many countries are experiencing and the perception of the body politic is that he represents the “same old same old” stale politics that they want to get rid of. 

Jay H. Ell will outline Biden's modus operandi both within America and the world stage where he believes you don’t shout from the roof tops that you are a star and remain low key so as to keep all avenues open for negotiation and compromise for whatever follows. 

WHAT IF BIDEN DIDN’T STAND?

Just consider for one moment if Biden signified that he was standing down. The latter fear was verbalized at an international press conference following the historic unified NATO conference that had, orchestrated by him, just admitted Finland, accepted Sweden as a member and made it quite clear that Ukraine would join after the war. Biden reassured the anxious Finnish press member that he would be around and the USA’s support of the organization that he had reshaped  was not in question, On the home front, had he announced his retirement,  he would have been a “lame duck” unable to fully administer his landmark legislation on, for example, infrastructure, welfare and chip making industry, the results of which will begin to hit in in 2024 with a vengeance.. 

WHY HE SHOULDN’T RUN

For starters let us examine why Biden, besides his age, does not project the image, of being an alpha male President or at least a towering presidential figure. His rapid soft spoken speech and his tendency to give long circuitous replies to questions, and not the well rehearsed “one liners,” is not what is customarily witnessed.. None of this is helped by his speech sometimes appearing slurred, which has been professionally put down to an earlier stutter speech defect. He also makes bloopers which he has done since time immemorial. The latter has resulted in the extreme right smearing him as being demented. 

Some have claimed that having Kamilla Harris on his ticket is “unhelpful” and that the campaign will be largely directed against her. Those who maintain this narrative are ignoring the large African American support Biden enjoys.  

However the broad electorate do not want a rematch between him and Trump. They needn’t have it especially from the Democratic side where the bench runs deep with younger and more “Presidential” like candidates. Just think of Governors Newsom and Whitmer to name two. So why Biden and why is he, despite the negatives, still the part? 

WHY BIDEN SHOULD RUN?

Remember last time around he beat Trump relatively narrowly in the swing states because enough anti Trump Republicans and former Democrats switched to him. It was a choice between him and Trump. This time round Trump or a clone will be in a weaker position in those seven swing states as the interim elections have indicated. In addition if Trump is not the nominee he will be the “spoiler” and run as a third candidate. Or if not his faithful would not vote for anyone else and just “stand down”.

While Trump’s legal woes have to date consolidated his base support and financial contributions they cannot be having a positive effect on the independent voter.

BIDEN’S PREVIOUS POLITICAL EXPERIENCE GIVES A CLUE AS TO HOW AND WHY HE PROJECTS HIS “UNPRESIDENTIAL” IMAGE.

There should be an "academy" for would be CEOS of company USA. Learning on the job which is a humongous undertaking is not for amateurs who still include Donald J. Trump. If one could find fault with Obama’s terms was that he was inexperienced. Biden has spent a life time in the "academy". First he served in the Senate for 36 years on multiple committees chairing a number including Justice and Foreign Relations. Then he was Vice President for eight years.

2020 was Biden’s third try as a Presidential candidate, really failing dismally in 1968 and 2008. It was in the latter election that Obama chose him as his running mate, recognizing, from close up what many hadn’t - the wide range of experience knowledge and skills that Biden had exhibited in the Senate. The Forty Forth Commander in Chief used Biden extensively especially in foreign policy adding further international know how and contacts to his resume. He has a relationship with virtually every nations' leaders. 

There is no way that Biden could have achieved as much across the aisle and risen to the heights of leadership within his own party if he had shouted his mouth off like a Ted Cruz. He is and was universally liked and respected amongst his former colleagues. Lindsey Graham as recently as 2021 privately confessed that Joe Biden was the best person to lead the USA. Graham had seen previously on tape, that went viral years ago, maintaining that no - one could say a bad word about his former Senate colleague. 

So Biden does his maneuvering and politicking behind the scenes. Take two examples in his Presidency. The debt raising crisis and budget negotiations with Speaker Kevin McCarthy. He publicly acknowledged that McCarthy was in a difficult position and was meeting in good faith. The end result was an incredibly favorable outcome which the right wing of the “GOP” voted against. There was no crowing and shouting from the rooftops that he pulled one over that “son of a bitch”. (Incidentally for those wondering why culture wars have been front and center of the “GOP” thrust and not illegal immigration the answer is that the Biden Administration have it at the lowest number for a long while).

Then there was his continued assurance that Turkey would drop its objection to Sweden joining NATO. Lo and behold it transpired  in what has to have been the most skillful diplomacy and horse trading. Turkey is going to be allowed to buy US made F16s while Sweden will support Turkey’s application to the European Union. Biden has not shared any of his background “diplomacy”. 

Added to all this is his incredible legislative record with the slenderest of majorities. Indeed some of it being bipartisan. This led Majorie Taylor Greene to attack him by claiming that he follows FDR’s “New Deal” and Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” which introduced Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and now Biden continues the destruction with “Bidenomics”. Biden has used this speech in a rare election advert!

Finally the incumbent’s party has a massive advantage in that they don’t have to spend or run a divisive Primary as being witnessed in the “GOP”. Biden is synchronizing his re election with the Democratic Party effort so as to make his campaign universal in every competed seat. At the moment Trump may have the base of his party but that isn’t nearly enough to win an election. Trump is out on his own not even contemplating attending the Primary debates.

AT THE END OF THE DAY

Biden’s experience and skill set may make him the most qualified President since FDR and LBJ but he is not the alpha male type nor has he the oratorial skills of an Obama, Clinton or a Reagan. 

 Whoever the candidates are in 2024 how on earth can the GOP candidate win defending unbridled gun procession and abortion abolition?

In 2024 “Bidenomics” will be hitting the country in all states, blue and red. Biden has already called out “GOP” Congress members, who voted against his legislation, who are now touting the benefits to their electorate as if it was as a result of their efforts. 

In an ideal world Biden could go back to Delaware and enjoy his grandchildren but this is far from an ideal world.

 

WILL THE ROBERTS COURT BE HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT?

 

Chief Justice John Roberts has just completed his eighteenth year as the leader of the Supreme Court. The jurist has a keen sense of history and is more than mindful that he is in a unique position to  shape the future of the country. He is also acutely aware that The Supreme Court is the unelected institution of the three pillars of Government and its legitimacy to a large extent is dependent on how the American citizenry respect and approve of its actions. It is painfully obvious that the Robert’s court has currently scant acceptance from the American public with the lowest approval rate in history. A Quinnipiac poll taken prior to the release of the most recent highly contentious decisions showed a 29 percent approval rating.  When a President running for re election can feel politically comfortable in calling this Court “Not Normal” Roberts should be taking note, which in fact he is.

So it is obvious why Roberts, after eighteen years as Chief Justice, has taken the unprecedented action of including in the body of one the Court’s most recent controversial decisions the current perception of the court in the public domain. He pleads for all concerned not to question the integrity of the Court as he argues that it “could be harmful to the country”.  In addition it would be instructive for Robert’s to reflect why the seventeen year Warren Court was and is still positively regarded while his court, after18 years, is making fruitless appeals for validation. 

Before plunging into the retrogressive decisions there are two which have engendered positivity from a wide spectrum of opinion, especially  those who believe that nothing good can emerge from the Roberts Court. Roberts, who has led to the undoing of much of the Civil Rights Voting Act, opposed the State of Missouri who had created only one constituency where African Americans, who represent 27 percent of the voters, were in the majority. The other “good” news was that the Court denied the North Carolina legislature’s contention that they, not the State Courts, had the final say on election results. The unbridled legislative power being the Trump theory in one of his abortive attempts to overthrow the 2020 election

THE WARREN AND ROBERTS COURTS

The Warren Court stands out as a beacon in heralding equality and relegating legal segregation to the dustbin of history. The fact that two African Americans are belting it out in the Roberts Court is in no small measure a result of what the Warren Court was able to achieve. Roberts appears to have conflicting agendas. He has an ideological bent which is plainly evident to every and any observer whether they applaud it or oppose it. Warren, a former Republican Governor, had a far more open vision and wasn’t hamstrung by any label. Nor was Warren handicapped by a process whereby three judges on his court, who when the president nominated them, assured his constituents as to how they would rule from the bench. Neither does the fact that the nomination of at least one Justice pick was literally “robbed” from Obama by the then GOP controlled Senate, help validating Roberts’s craving for legitimacy. His  apparent non action of the unethical behavior of some of the members of his court further sours public support. 

IT COMES DOWN TO THE ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT IN RELATION TO SOCIETY

Surely the role of the Supreme Court, in interpreting The Constitution, should reflect the evolution of societal values, codify them and only to a certain extent lead. The Warren Court in their landmark school segregation decision claimed that “separate but equal" was inherently unequal on the basis of the reality situation, thereby setting the stage for the continuation of the civil rights struggle which was taking place in society. The Warren Court emphasized the right to privacy when States attempted to ban contraception, (privacy was also the constitutional basis for the right to abortion up to twenty three weeks in the Roe v Wade decision). They also blocked attempts to hinder the Voting Rights Acts. 

In short the court was in sync with society on the general desire to move away from discrimination.

WHERE IS SOCIETY IN RELATION TO THE ROBERTS COURT?

While there is little doubt that while the body politic, as represented by blue and red state legislatures is at loggerheads there is a remarkable consensus on most of the values that the Court issued societal decisions. Chief Justice Roberts in an effort to stamp his imprimatur on the legacy of the court authored all the underlying opinions except the abolishing of the right to abortion. 

 Roberts, himself, voted against the total nullification of the fifty year old decision Roe v Wade which allowed abortion up to twenty three weeks under the “privacy” provision of the constitution and had been ratified again and again. He was not “blameless” however in the outcome. He merely did not want to go as far as the rest of the Conservative Court. He saw a gradual solution to the “problem” and wanted to decrease the time where abortion would be allowed to 13 weeks, which was what the plaintiffs had asked for. This decision was in the teeth of societal opinion, polls consistently showing sixty percent or more opposed to it. A Pew study showed that twice as many women, “strongly disapproved"  the outcome as compared to men. After all the country is in a"MeToo" world with more and more control and equity being demanded and being received by women. 

Without a doubt the abortion decision was the most impactful of the Roberts Court’s reign. Chief Justice Roberts in an address  stated that it was not the issue per se rather, he confided, “The hardest decision I had to make was whether to erect fences and barricades around the Supreme Court. I had no choice but to go ahead and do it”. That decision was made in the wake of protests that followed the leak of Justice Alito’s draft opinion overturning Roe. With regard to the latter there was deep dissatisfaction at the process the Chief Justice utilized in investigating the leak of the outcome, which many alleged may have been by the author of the decision, Justice Alito.  

In June 2022 the Roberts Court ruled, in a 6 - 3 decision, that more people could legally carry guns on the streets of the nation’s largest cities. This decision undid a trove of State laws which had placed various restrictions on the wholesale freedom to “carry” weapons. Society in the wake of the increasing epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings, in a Fox poll, reflected their attitudes towards this interpretation of the Second Amendment. The poll indicated that 87 percent of those surveyed wanted at least some or other control of gun possession and certainly not a liberalization of existing law. The Court’s decision took no account of the random havoc that is  being wrought unhindered by their interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Then the Court considered a case impinging on LGBT rights. Their ill thought out resolution could open the door to a potential wholesale denial of rights and services to the LGBT community. 

The Supreme Court even accepting to hear this case raised legal eyebrows as the complainant had no "standing". Normally a complainant has to have "injury in fact to their legal interests". This case raised a hypothetical question as to whether a web designer, who was going to create sites for weddings claimed, for religious reasons, that she would want to refuse to design a website for non heterosexual unions. The case was further muddied by the fact that the hypothetical question had allegedly been asked by what turned out to be a married heterosexual male who categorically denied ever contacting the plaintiff. The legal argument here was that the future website designer was entitled to her First Amendment Rights to free expression and freedom of religion and therefore could refuse to serve the non heterosexual couple. 

A Gallup poll of January this year indicated a 71 percent acceptance rate of same gender marriage unions which in fact to date has been the position of the Court. However, to Jay H. Ell, a lay person, it appears obvious that anyone, might be entitled to express an opinion such as "races should not mix" and in the event of their opening a restaurant they might not want to serve those of color for religious reasons.

Another decision in a case again where the plaintiffs had “no standing” was the allocation of funds by President Biden - up to 20,000 dollars of their student debt for those earning less than 75, 000 dollars a year and 10,000 for those earning up to 125, 000 a year. The Court’s decision in effect was a refutation of Executive Power in what the legal fraternity, regardless of their position, maintained was a reasonable interpretation of the “Heroes Act”. Biden’s rationale, besides the crippling effect, that educational costs impose in the USA, was the impact of the Covid pandemic. 

Notwithstanding the fact that those without College debts would have scant sympathy for this cause, 62 percent of those surveyed by another poll sponsored by Fox News were “broadly in favor” of debt relief programs. 

In the final decision of the Court, society, according to a Pew poll, was evenly split on whether to allow race to be a consideration in College Admission. This litigation is a hardy perennial in Supreme Court hearings and precedent after precedent, taking into account amicus briefs of societal leaders from all walks of life, has resulted in it remaining untouched. The supporting arguments included the importance of “leveling the playing fields” for the African American sector, whose circumstances generally, including school education, have been far poorer than the other sectors in the community. The Court ruled in favor of axing Affirmative Action.

It was in the Affirmative Action litigation that Chief Justice Roberts chided the Justices  who impugned the decision making process of their colleagues. In addition he made his general appeal to the body politic to accept the Supreme Court decisions in good faith. Justices Ketanje Brown Jackson and Clarence Thomas, both African Americans in written opinions had disagreed with one another in the sharpest possible language. In dissenting Chief Justice Roberts’s argument, Justice Jackson Brown caustically pointed out that the Roberts decision made an exception for the military, allowing Affirmative  Action, to continue there. She maintained that “it was alright for the bunker but not for the board”. Justice Sotomayor in her detailed dissent claimed that The Court finding was not constitutional.

AT THE END OF THE DAY

It is a reasonable assessment that as opposed to reflecting, leading and codifying current societal values the Roberts Court is negating them. In so doing they are often reversing long standing  precedents. The latter in spite of the last three Trump appointees, during their nomination processes, repeatedly claimed that they had the utmost respect for precedent. It is exceedingly unlikely that their decisions will ultimately change the direction society is headed. 

Chief Justice Roberts has failed to address the incidences of blatant ethical misconduct of members of his Court which would have lead to serious enquiries in any other court below the Supreme Court. This  latter fact is thought by some commentators to have been the main factor that contributed most to their abysmal poll numbers.

Chief Justice Roberts might find that his court will not have any positive historical significance. Who remembers his predecessor, the nineteen year Rehnquist Court? Most recalled are its decisions to stop a Florida State Presidential recount ordered by the Florida’s Supreme Court. In fairness many of the societal issues reversed by the Roberts Court were reaffirmed by the Rehnquist Court and the latter invalidated laws against sodomy that were still present in certain Southern States.

Chief Justice Roberts's plea for no internal dissent in The Court has fallen on deaf ears as the minority three female members have continued to call out the decision making of The Court. Chief Justice Roberts can do nothing about the criticism leveled. Like Justices Thomas and Alito they are life appointees.