Americans love to celebrate the events and people responsible for our nation’s 248 year old experiment in government “of the people, by the people and for the people.”  Premiere among national holidays is July 4, Independence Day, the day the experiment left the laboratory. Some, such as Juneteenth National Independence Day (June 19), laud the addition of previously excluded populations from the full benefit of the American experience.  Though I would argue it is way past time for Congress to designate August 18 a national holiday, the day in 1919 when Vice-President Thomas Marshall signed the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote.  On Labor Day, we acknowledge the work ethic of those who built and maintain the physical and organizational infrastructure that underpins the nation’s economic success.  Others, more observances than celebrations, honor the men and women who fought and died to preserve the principles and institutions that ensure these benefits for future generations.  These holidays represent the best of times, when Americans moved ever closer to the ideal of a “more perfect union.”

Unfortunately, many of these advances are responses to equally sad days in American history.  And as the memory of these events fade in the national consciousness, perhaps it is time for Congress to designate days of remembrance and reflection to remind each of us why so many of our rights and benefits were not automatic.  Let me suggest just a few.

August 20, 1619.  Kidnapped Angolans first arrive in the British colony of Virginia, the beginning of almost 250 years of slavery in North America.

December 6, 1830.  President Andrew Jackson, in a address to Congress promotes removal of Native Americans from their homelands “to relieve Mississippi and Alabama of Indian occupancy and enable those states to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power.”

December 29, 1890.  The Wounded Knee Massacre during which American soldiers killed more than 300 members of the Lakota nation.

May 31, 1921.  Known as the Black Wall Street Massacre, a two-day rampage by white supremacists in Tulsa, Oklahoma resulting in the destruction of black-owned businesses and residences and approximately 300 deaths.

February 20, 1939.  Twenty thousand Americans attend a Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden sponsored by the the German American Bund, a pro-Hitler organization.

Each of these events ran counter to the promise embodied in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In this context, I suggest it is time to add one more day of remembrance and reflection–June 24, 2022, the second anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.  For the first time in American history, the Supreme Court repealed a right previously granted by the Court.  Furthermore, the 6-3 majority, several of whom swore before the U.S. Senate during their confirmation hearings that Roe v. Wade was settled law, overruled every lower court ruling which upheld Roe.

U.S. District Court Judge Carlton W. Reeves, who originally heard the case, wrote Mississippi has “…no legitimate state interest strong enough, prior to viability, to justify a ban on abortions.”  On behalf of the Fifth District Court of Appeals, following a 3-0 decision to uphold Roe, Judge Patrick Higginbotham wrote:

In an unbroken line dating to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s abortion cases have established (and affirmed, and re-affirmed) a woman’s right to choose an abortion before viability. States may regulate abortion procedures prior to viability so long as they do not impose an undue burden on the woman’s right, but they may not ban abortions.

Yet, when appealed to the Supreme Court, Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett might as well have exchanged their robes for Melania Trump’s raincoat with the words, “I really don’t care, do you?”  They did not care that every lower court had abided by a deference to legal precedence that they had publicly sworn to honor. They did not care that there was no dissension among lower court judges which is usually required to trigger Supreme Court consideration.   Nor did they care that the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution reads:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Which begs the question of these supposed originalists, where is the specific language in the Constitution which denies women the right to make decisions about their reproductive health without interference from the government?

And most importantly, they did not care the reasoning behind their decision, embodied in Alito’s majority opinion and especially in Thomas’ concurring opinion, opened a Pandora’s box that potentially nullifies legal precedence and settled law in every previously decided case. Thomas specifically pointed to past decisions related to the right to contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut), bans on homosexual activity (Lawrence v. Texas) and gay marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges).

…in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,”

Notably, Thomas left out Loving v. Virginia, without which he could possibly have been prosecuted and jailed for having married his white, insurrectionist wife, ironically, named (drum roll) Virginia.

June 24, 2022 is a truly sad day for America which needs to be observed annually.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

For three hours, yesterday morning, Donald Trump’s defense attorney Todd Blanche argued that Michael Cohen, a self-admitted liar, tax evader and thief is not the reformed citizen the district attorney of New York wants the jury to believe.  Joshua Steinglass, who presented the People’s closing argument, rebutted this assumption when he reminded the jurors:

He had a legal title, but he wasn’t in the Trump Organization legal department. He didn’t answer to the general counsel, he answered to the defendant directly, He got the jobs no one else wanted. The jobs that the defendant wanted to keep quiet.

We didn’t choose Michael Cohen to be our witness. We didn’t pick him up at the witness store. The defendant chose Michael Cohen as his fixer because he was willing to lie and cheat on his behalf.

What Steinglass could have said, but probably chose not to because an immediate defense objection would likely be sustained by Judge Juan Merchan, was evidence throughout the trial that Cohen had been replaced as Trump’s “Mini-Me” by none other than (drum roll) Todd Blanche. Consider the following when Blanche took a page from his client’s playbook, projecting his own behavior on Cohen.  At the end of his closing statement, Blanche ticked off the many times Cohen had lied.  Then he suggested Cohen was still lying, loudly accusing Cohen, syllable by syllable, of “per-ju-ry.”

However, Blanche’s role as the latest in a long line of Trump fixers was evident from day one of the trial.  In his opening statement, Blanche claimed Trump never had a sexual encounter with Stormy Daniels.  Yet, provided no evidence to substantiate this highly suspicious assertion.  Trump no longer needed Cohen or Hope Hicks to “deny, deny, deny!”  He now had Todd Blanche.

Again, with no evidence, Blanche argued that the payments to Cohen were for legal services, despite the fact the transaction was listed in a footnote to Trump’s 2017 financial disclosure statement as follows.

In the interest of transparency, while not required to be disclosed as “reportable liabilities” on Part 8, in 2016 expenses were incurred by one of Donald J. Trump’s attorneys, Michael Cohen. Mr. Cohen sought reimbursement of those expenses and Mr. Trump fully reimbursed Mr. Cohen in 2017. The category of value would be $100,001 – $250,000 and the interest rate would be zero.

We now know, based on Trump Organization’s CFO Allen Weisselberg’s handwritten notes, this “transparent” statement was false since the value of the transaction was actually $420,000, not in the range listed in the footnote.

More direct evidence came from the defendant himself.  In a May 3, 2018 tweet, Trump wrote:

Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement (my emphasis), a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA.

Blanche later proved his client demanded more of his fixer than simply lying.  He also had to cheat in service to his client.  And cheat he did during the trial.  His first defense witness was a paralegal who had constructed an Excel spreadsheet of phone records between Cohen and attorney Robert Costello even though the actual phone records were available.  Blanche used the reconstructed data to claim there had been over 75 calls between Cohen and Costello.  However, during cross-examination the paralegal admitted he did not differentiate between calls in which the two actually conversed versus those that went directly to voicemail, resulting in double-counting the number of actual conversations.

But best evidence of Blanche’s willingness to do anything for his client came in his closing statement when he told the jury, “You cannot send someone to prison, you cannot convict somebody based upon the words of Michael Cohen.”  During the next break, Judge Merchan reprimanded Blanche for a clear violation of the rules which forbid attorneys from addressing potential sentencing.

You know that making a comment like that is highly inappropriate. It is simply not allowed. Period. It’s hard for me to imagine that was accidental in any way,

When the jury re-entered the courtroom, Merchan provided the following curative instruction.

In the defense summation, Mr. (Todd) Blanche asked in substance that you not send the defendant to prison. That comment was improper and you must disregard it. In your deliberations, you may not discuss, consider or even speculate as to matters related to sentence or punishment.

Merchan considered this violation so egregious, he added an addendum to the standard jury charge this morning reminding jurors they “may not speculate about matters related to sentence or punishment,” that being the the purview of the judge.

There is a quote about legal strategy attributed to Carl Sandburg. “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”  That may still be true in most cases.  However, if your client is Donald Trump, Sandburg might add, “If that is not enough, lie and cheat.  That is what your client demands of his fixer.”

Michael Cohen served as Trump’s fixer for 10 years.  But not in Judge Merchan’s courtroom.  That title now belongs to Todd Blanche. The only remaining question is whether Blanche will one day be on a witness stand being vilified by a future Trump fixer for things he did in service of Mr. Trump.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP