If at first you don’t succeed, cheat!

~Elijah Barns/The Witch and Jet Splinters

The above quote comes from a series of fantasy books about the partnership between a black cat (Jet Splinters) and Jinny Lane (the witch).  Their goal?  To prevent an unscrupulous developer from building a golf course on land they consider to be sacred.  Before you ask, this is not another tell-all book by one of Donald Trump’s associates.  However, it could be a metaphor how, in January 2021, he tried to construct a false monument to himself on the sacred landscape of American democracy.  You decide whether Mike Pence would be type cast as the witch or the black cat.

Closer to home, Barns’ quote applies also to the state of Florida. Remember, Governor Ron DeSantis and the MAGA-dominated state legislature claim to be the law and order party, except of course, when the law needs a little tweaking or outright trashing to achieve their ideological priorities.  This was most evident when, on November 6, 2018, 65 percent of voters approved Amendment 4, which reads:

This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis.

For the record, the definition of criminal sentence, according to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University, reads, “the term of imprisonment or probation imposed on a convicted defendant for criminal wrongdoing.”  That must have been good enough for the State of Florida because there were no statutes which provided an alternative definition.  That is, of course, until passage of Amendment 4, at which time the governor and state legislature said, “The voters be damned.  We ain’t gonna let all those felons vote in our state.”  To accomplish their objective, the legislature passed and DeSantis signed Senate Bill 7066 signed in June 2019.  The act added Section 98.0751, which included the following, more expansive definition of “sentencing.”

Full payment of fines or fees ordered by the court as a part of the sentence or that are ordered are ordered by the court as a condition of any form of supervision, including, but not limited to, probation, community control, or parole.

These fees include the $50/day charged for prison stays beginning on the day of conviction and ending on the last day of the court ordered sentence, even if the inmate is subject to early release.  Since most inmates cannot pay the fee while in prison, it accrues as “a cost of incarceration lien.”  If on probation, a convicted felon may be subject to a supervision fee and required to reimburse the state for drug testing, electronic monitoring and instruction programs.  It is not hard to imagine these accrued obligations can take years, if not forever, to pay off.

Call it whatever you want, but changing the rules after a winner has been declared is cheating in my book.  This year we have a new Amendment 4, and DeSantis is at it again with the upcoming vote in November to provide a constitutional right to abortion before fetal viability.  Polling suggests the measure could garner the 60 percent majority needed for passage.  This time, DeSantis, et. al., decided not to wait until the outcome to undercut voters.

The text of the propose amendment is pretty straight forward.

Except as provided in Article X, Section 22, no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.

The exception refers to a requirement under current law that parents of a minor be notified if their child seeks an abortion unless a waiver is provided by a state court.

You must be really creative to find a way to cheat on this one.  But that did not stop DeSantis and opponents of the measure.  Under the administrative rules for constitutional referenda, the proposed amendment must be accompanied by financial impact statement which estimates potential revenues and expenses if the proposal is approved.  State law designates a panel called the Financial Impact Estimate Conference to draft the impact statement.  Florida Statute 216.138 defines the Conference members as follows.

• A representative from the Executive Office of the Governor
• A representative from the Senate’s professional staff
• A representative from the House of Representatives’ professional staff
• The coordinator of the Legislative Office of Economic and Demographic Research, or their designee 

•  A reduction of education services.
• An overall reduction in fertility rates reducing federal funding.
• A worse credit rating affecting Florida’s fiscal output.

“Yes on 4,” the organization leading the campaign to pass the amendment, has challenged the new language because Speaker Renner’s 11th hour appointment was ineligible for membership on the impact panel.  Rachel Greszler, is not a member of the House’s professional staff as required by statute.  Are you ready?  Greszler is a member of the Heritage Foundation, and according to the Washington Post, (drum roll) “a contributing author to that group’s controversial Project 2025 plan.”

So, speaking of amendments, if Elijah Barns decides to publish a subsequent volume in his The Witch and Jet Splinters saga, he may want to revise the quote to read:

If at first, you believe you are not going to succeed, cheat!

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

There is no justification for what happened in Butler, Pennsylvania Saturday afternoon.  It was an unacceptable assault on democracy.  And America is fortunate the shooter was a less skilled marksman than Lee Harvey Oswald or James Earl Ray.  In a rare moment of agreement, both President Biden and Donald Trump called on their supporters to “cool down the temperature.”  This period of reconciliation did not last 24 hours. 

Biden went on national television Sunday night and reminded Americans, “We settle our differences at the ballot box, not with bullets” and pulled ads his campaign planned to run during the Republican National Convention.  Trump sent his supporters a fundraising letter which included a stylized version of AP photographer Evan Vucci’s image of the blooded candidate raising his fist in the air.

The question that haunts me today is, “Will Americans let a misguided 20 year-old with his father’s AR-15 decide the future direction of our country?”  Thomas Matthew Crooks must have thought he could.  Which brings me back to my previous posts, especial the one from July 9, titled, “An Unwitting Asset.”  The 2024 election, regardless of the Republican nominee, should never be about an individual.  “The soul of America,” about which Biden so often refers, has been under assault for decades.  When Democrats, myself included, focus on Trump’s flaws, we drop the ball.

I apologize for repeating myself, but the vision of America that will be laid out in Milwaukee did not begin with Donald Trump.  The Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 by Paul Weyrich, Edwin Feulner and Joseph Coors.  [Note:  Weyrich, a la Gene Wilder in Young Frankenstein, insisted his last name was pronounced “Wy-Rick” instead of “Way-Rich.]  Weyrich, a conservative commentator, political activist and ordained deacon in the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, recruited Coors, patriarch of the brewery which bears his family name, to underwrite creation of the Heritage Foundation.  Feulner, after serving as an aide to Congressman Phil Crane (R-IL), became Heritage’s first president.

If you think Project 2025 is the first time the Heritage Foundation played a major role in setting the agenda for a Republican administration, think again.  In 1981, the foundation provided policy guidance for incoming president Ronald Reagan including a document with 2,000 specific recommendations titled (drum roll) “Mandate for Leadership.”  Sound familiar?  Heritage exerted similar influence during the George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush administrations.

Following the announcement of Trump’s entry into the 2016 election cycle, the foundation was no fan of the future president.  Heritage Action director Michael Needham, during a Fox News appearance, said, “Donald Trump’s a clown.”  However, after Trump secured the GOP nomination, the Foundation forwarded a list of potential appointees, according to the New York Times, drawn from “a 3,000-name searchable database of trusted movement conservatives from around the country who were eager to serve in a post-Obama government.”  (Again I ask, “Sound familiar?”)

Which brings me to the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies (FedSoc), founded in 1982 by law students at Harvard, Yale and the University of Chicago.  It claims to be a response to judicial activism and often quotes Alexander Hamilton to support their views.

It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature.

To achieve that goal, FedSoc  wanted to flood the courts with their members.  And flood them they have.  All six Republican appointees to the Supreme Court belong to FedSoc.  And surprise, surprise, so does Judge Aileen Cannon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, who, as I am writing this, just dismissed the classified documents case against Trump.  Among the law professors in the FedSoc ranks is former dean of the Chapman University School of Law John Eastman, one of the architects of the 2020 fake electors scheme.

While the Heritage Foundation is the policy arm of the one-percent, the Federalist Society is the judicial branch of the same confederation.  Donors include the Koch family ($116 billion net worth), the Richard Mellon Scaife family ($1.2 billion) foundation and the Mercer family ($900 million) as well as major corporations such as Google and Chevron.  Yes, that Chevron.  The losing plaintiff in a 1984 case which was recently overturned by a six member majority, you guessed it, the GOP appointees who just happen to be FedSoc members.  [NOTE:  The Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society are both 501(c)(3) educational foundations which means, assuming these major donors are in the maximum 37 percent marginal tax bracket, the federal government subsidizes 37 cent for each dollar they give to their “noble” cause.]

To suggest that FedSoc-appointed justices selectively suffer amnesia when its comes to Hamilton or their originalist philosophy is an understatement.  The dam broke with Citizens United v. FEC.  So much for legislative prerogative as Hamilton advocated.  This case literally outlawed federal and state legislators’ role in regulating campaign financing.  And, to this day, legal scholars are still looking for constitutional language that equates MONEY with SPEECH.

Likewise, by reversing the 1984 Chevron decision, the justices stripped Congress of its Article I authority to legislatively delegate rulemaking to federal agencies.  To the contrary, the courts anointed the judiciary as the venue for oversight.  In general, the Roberts court has repeatedly ruled in favor of management over workers, overturned state election laws and ignored the Article II of the Constitution in support of the the Heritage Foundation’s belief in the unitary theory of the executive branch.  Can you say “presidential immunity?”  I knew you could.

So forget Donald Trump!  Republican presidents since 1980 have been doing the bidding of this cabal of oligarchs not unlike the one that pulls Vladimir Putin’s strings.  Giving them massive tax breaks.  Reducing regulations promulgated to protect the public health and safety. Appointing their hand-picked justices and judges who regularly decide cases in favor of the privileged. The difference with Trump is that they now have someone who revels in the trappings of the White House, unlike his patrons who prefer life under the radar.  Equally important, even as he tosses out non-sensical ideas such as replacing the income tax with tariffs, he eventually lands exactly where they want him to be, deeper tax cuts and deregulation.  It is this system, not Donald Trump, that should be on trial November 5th.

The solution? 

• #1: Reposition the 2024 election as something other than a “grudge match” between Biden and Trump by nominating someone who can prosecute the oligarchs’ agenda rather than their mouthpiece. 
• #2: Structure the Democratic convention to expose the consequences of an administration based on Project 2025.  Do this with presentations by one member of Trump’s first administration who tells voters how implementation of Project 2025 proposals would corrupt the executive branch, followed by a Democrat who lays out an alternative agenda for the next four years.  Each presentation should be illustrated with examples of the consequences for most Americans. 
• #3:  After pointing out Trump is only the messenger for the uber-rich elites, never mention his name again.  Although Trump claims he is a changed man following his brush with death, does any actually believe him?  Based on past behavior, I trust he will prove us correct without our help.

The prime directive?  Explain why the 2024 election is a choice between Russian-style oligarchy and democracy.  And separate voters’ perception that the MAGA agenda is a populist response to their grievances from what it really means for their families and wallets.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP