It’s official: President Trump has nominated Brett Kavanaugh to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy as an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Kavanaugh has served on the D.C. Circuit since 2006. A graduate of Yale and Yale Law, he clerked for the man he’s been chosen to replace, and for legal legend Alex Kozinski. He twice worked for Ken Starr, first as a fellow in the U.S. Solicitor General’s Office and later in the Office of Independent Counsel. He’s known in D.C. circles and among Republicans and will be difficult to portray as an ideologue or extremist.
Republican presidents have struggled with Supreme Court nominations. Kennedy became a justice only after President Reagan’s failed nomination of Robert Bork, followed by Douglas Ginsburg’s admission of past drug use that resulted in his withdrawal from consideration for a seat on the High Court.
Dwight D. Eisenhower nominated some of the most liberal justices in the Court’s history, Earl Warren and William J. Brennan. Richard Nixon nominated Justice Harry Blackman, who authored the opinion in Roe v. Wade (1973). Gerald Ford nominated John Paul Stevens, who has, in retirement, advocated repealing the Second Amendment. George H. W. Bush nominated David Souter, and George W. Bush’s selection of John Roberts, seemingly impeccable at the time, has disappointed many conservatives in light of cases like National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), which alleged, among other things, that Obamacare’s individual mandate to purchase health insurance was a “tax,” not a “penalty.”
Kennedy himself has cast votes in seminal cases with the left wing of the Court. That’s what makes the present nomination so momentous: replacing Antonin Scalia with Gorsuch preserved a conservative voting bloc, with Kennedy serving as the swing vote, whereas Kavanaugh could tip the balance: five conservatives (Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh) against four liberals (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan).
Senate Republicans will move quickly on Kavanaugh’s nomination in hopes of making him a sitting justice by October, when the Supreme Court’s next term commences, and before the 2018 midterm elections take place. Judicial Crisis Network has already announced a major ad campaign in states like Indiana and West Virginia with competitive midterm races.
Gorsuch was nominated on January 30, 2017, confirmed by the Senate on April 7, 2017, and took office on April 17, 2017. Two months and 17 days passed from when he was nominated to when he took office. If Kavanaugh’s confirmation spans the same period, he will take office on September 23, 2018—just meeting the Republican’s desired deadline.
Six key senators, however, could disrupt the process: Susan Collins (Republican, Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Republican, Alaska), moderates who are generally pro-choice; Joe Donnelly (Democrat, Indiana) and Dean Heller (Republican, Nevada), who are campaigning for reelection in “purple” swing states this fall; Doug Jones (Democrat, Alabama), who must cast conservative votes if he wishes to retain his seat beyond 2021; and Joe Manchin (Democrat, West Virginia), who is up against the reliably conservative Patrick Morrisey, the former Attorney General of West Virginia, in the 2018 midterm election.
Each of these senators except Jones, who has never voted on a Supreme Court nominee, voted “yea” to confirm Gorsuch. Two Democratic senators in conservative states, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Jon Tester of Montana, voted “nay” on Gorsuch and will likely do so again on Kavanaugh.
Only 12 nominees, historically, have been rejected by the Senate, and just four since the turn of the twentieth century. The odds are thus in Kavanaugh’s favor, despite the rancorous political climate and threats of Democratic stonewalling. Last year conservatives worried that Gorsuch wouldn’t gain support among moderates, but he was confirmed with a 54-45 vote after Democratic senators, mostly for show, attempted to filibuster his nomination.
In the following weeks we’ll be immersed in contentious, constructive debates over Kavanaugh’s extensive record, but it could be that the biggest battles over the judiciary are yet to come. The two oldest justices on the Supreme Court are Stephen Breyer, who turns 80 next month, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is 85. Either could retire during President Trump’s first term. If they don’t, the Supreme Court will become the hottest political issue going into the 2020 presidential election—and many elections to come.
Opinion | Dr. King’s legacy lives on 52 years later
On April 4, 1968, I was watching the little black and white television in our living room when the newscaster said that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had been assassinated. My tears flowed freely. Even though I was only 4, I knew that his death was a tragedy, especially for little black boys like me.
My parents and I lived on Chicago’s Southside in a yellow, three-story apartment building at the corner of 91st and Throop St. Three floors, three apartments, each one running the full length of the building with a huge picture window in the living room. Daylight streamed through ours as I watched the newscast through my tears, riveted by sorrow and fear.
King was my hero, a man who courageously stood for justice and peace, even when threatened with violence. He was an eloquent preacher, whose soaring lines and velvet tones even captivated little children. And he was a father who, like my own, had tried to explain the nonsensical evil of racism to his child.
Yolanda, the oldest of the King children, had wanted to go to Fun Town, an amusement park in Atlanta. He had to explain to her that Fun Town was only open to white children. Chicago also had a Fun Town, but because it was in the black community – 95th and Stony Island Ave. – I don’t recall it being off-limits to me and other African-American children.
But the Chicago of the 1960s wasn’t that different from the Jim Crow South. Black families who tried to move into white neighborhoods were run out. The dividing lines were stark and clear. In fact, I only saw white Chicagoans while watching the news or when shopping downtown.
Northern segregation had a profoundly negative economic impact on black Chicago. It was so bad that three years before his assassination, King and his family actually moved to Chicago to apply his civil rights strategies to slums, low-wage jobs and overcrowded schools.
When he led a march through Marquette Park, a notoriously all-white enclave on the Southside, someone hit him in the back of the head with a rock. “I have seen many demonstrations in the South,” King said. “But I have never seen anything so hostile and so hateful as I’ve seen here today.”
King’s Chicago experiences undoubtedly shaped my reaction when I learned of his death. I know that because my father was a news junkie, politically aware, and what we used to call a “race man” – meaning that he identified as a black man more than as an American or even a Christian. He also was a card-carrying Republican, but of the Eisenhower type, not Goldwater or Nixon. So he and my mother admired Dr. King, and passed that admiration on to me.
And I retain it today, 52 years after his assassination. In fact, it’s grown stronger and deeper through the years.
My favorite King quote comes from his sermon “Loving Your Enemies,” preached at Dexter Ave. Baptist Church in 1957: “Within the best of us, there is some evil, and within the worst of us, there is some good. When we come to see this, we take a different attitude toward individuals. The person who hates you most has some good in him; even the nation that hates you most has some good in it; even the race that hates you most has some good in it. And when you come to the point that you look in the face of every man and see deep down within him what religion calls ‘the image of God,’ you begin to love him in spite of – no matter what he does, you see God’s image there.”
King was an expert in having enemies. He had more than his fair share, including whoever actually killed him. (The King family believes that convicted King assassin James Earl Ray was framed. Dr. William F. Pepper’s book “An Act of State” explains why.)
But what King undoubtedly knew, and what his killers failed to fathom, is that while prophets die, their dreams or prophecies live on. And true prophets always will be validated by history and time.
Which is why I expect Dr. King’s legacy to outlive all of us.
Opinion | Jobs to move America
Before COVID-19 swept the country, public officials celebrated Alabama’s 2.7 percent unemployment rate: it was a record low for our state, and lower than the national average. But statistics never tell the full story. Were the jobs Alabamians working good ones? With paid sick, family, and medical leave to protect workers from COVID-19? Were people working more than one job to make ends meet?
As we reckon with a pandemic and pending economic recession of a magnitude difficult to comprehend, Alabama needs to start looking beyond unemployment rates to ask some soul-searching questions. As industry after industry demands huge public bailouts, the South’s history of offering big corporate giveaways represents a glaring example of why public subsidies should only be on the table if public officials put people and workers first.
Corporate subsidies, in the form of economic tax incentives, have become a popular tool that cities and states use to lure companies to a specific location. The fight over where Amazon would set up its second headquarters — cities raced to provide the most attractive incentive packages, offering billions of our public dollars to sweeten the deal — put a spotlight on the problems with these subsidies. Even after national outrage over the bidding war for Amazon, economic development specialists and elected officials continued to tell us that these subsidies were critical to creating jobs and growing the economy. Cities and states like Alabama still compete aggressively to bring corporations to our backyards, using our public dollars as bait. Promises of subsidies include abatement of income and property taxes, infrastructure development, workforce training, and sometimes cash. But the problem that COVID-19 has brought into sharp relief is that promises made are not always promises delivered. What’s worse, many of these promises weren’t good enough to begin with.
In Alabama, we celebrate the ribbon cutting of a new manufacturer breaking ground on a new plant and announcing new jobs that will be created. Yet, rarely are we told how much the state or municipality paid to the corporation to bring those jobs to the area or given details about the return on investment. Now that COVID-19 is shutting down production at manufacturing plants across our state, leaving many workers high and dry, it’s time to ask how our public dollars can be most effectively invested in private companies to ensure the outcomes we need.
Corporate subsidies have cost Alabama over $3.5 billion dollars over the past decade. The public has no information on how money was spent — or what we got for it. These subsidies do not require corporations to commit to providing a living wage; any paid sick, family, or medical leave; or hiring goals for marginalized communities. Most taxpayers don’t even know where to look for the information. This story holds true across the South.
Alabamians, like many of our Southern neighbors, cannot afford any loss of revenue. According to Alabama Possible, our state’s poverty rate is 18.9 percent, making us the 6th poorest state in the country. Our education system, mental health services, and public infrastructure are in dire need of funding. The National Center for Education Statistics ranks Alabama last in math, reading, and science. We also rank at the bottom in teacher pay, infrastructure, and access to health care. As a result, we lack the services and infrastructure needed to support working families through a crisis like COVID-19.
Why? For decades, our state has siphoned money from these critical public services and social infrastructure to provide corporations with handsome tax incentives in exchange for little more than a handshake deal. Our state is lining the pockets of corporate CEOs, not workers and communities.
COVID-19 makes it clear that Southerners deserve a better deal.
Which is why Jobs to Move America is building a research-action program, headquartered in Birmingham, to win sunshine and accountability policies in the South. We believe that together, we can turn the tide on endless and unaccountable corporate giveaways. We can demand limits on incentives and institute requirements that companies receiving our precious public dollars provide a living wage, benefits, a safe work environment free of racism and gender discrimination, and hiring preferences for marginalized and underrepresented communities. We can also demand a public accountability report about every company that receives subsidies so that Southerners can scrutinize whether their public dollars are actually doing public good.
To get there, we need to understand and document all the public dollars that our state has given away. We’ll write reports about that spending, we’ll dig into the consequences of corporate giveaways on our communities and workers. We’ll work in coalition with community-based organizations and social justice groups, like Alabama Arise, to educate public officials and community leaders about the impact of these subsidies. And eventually, we’ll win legislation that ensures our public dollars create the kind of return on investment that we believe in: good jobs and healthy communities.
Do Mercedes, Amazon and Walmart really need generous tax subsidies to operate business as usual? The clear answer is no. It is time to get our priorities in order and take care of our own people — instead of corporate shareholders.
Patricia Todd is the Southern Director at Jobs to Move America. Patricia has socially and professionally advocated for public policies relevant to social justice, education, HIV/AIDS, and a wide range of issues affect the entire Birmingham community for over twenty years. Patricia was elected to the Alabama Legislature as the State Representative for House District 54 in November of 2006 as the first openly gay elected official in Alabama’s history. She retired from the legislature in 2018.
Opinion | For humanitarian and public health reasons, we need to get people out of our jails
For the Lord hears the needy and does not despise his own people who are prisoners (Psalm 69:33)
We are facing a crisis unlike any in our lifetime. A virus is infecting us at unprecedented rates. Over 100,000 have been infected in the United States and the death toll in our country is already in the thousands.
But we’re not doing everything possible to keep us safe. The county jails in Alabama, which lock up thousands of people, are a major health risk. The incarcerated population can’t practice “social distancing” and instead are left to languish in these facilities with no soap or supplies to sanitize their own cells.
Imprisoned people are highly vulnerable to outbreaks of contagious illnesses such as COVID-19. People incarcerated in jails are housed in close quarters, and are often in poor health. And, according to a report from the Association of County Commissions of Alabama, the county jail population quadrupled between 2014 and 2018.
The way to mitigate that health risk is clear. We need to release people who are no risk to our communities and vulnerable to exposure immediately. And jail officials need to come up with a plan, and make it public, for how they will deal with a COVID-19 outbreak in their facility.
Gov. Kay Ivey acknowledged the danger in her State of Emergency declaration, finding that “the condition of jails inherently heightens the possibility of COVID-19 transmission.” Ivey’s declaration said that people charged with crimes could be served with a summons instead of being arrested. But that doesn’t do much for the people already locked up and awaiting trial.
And a COVID-19 outbreak in these jails with the current incarcerated population would be disastrous for public health. The incarcerated people who get infected would have to be taken to our already overcrowded hospitals, and people who work in the jails are also in danger of both being infected, and spreading the infection to people on the outside. Lowering the total number of people locked up would make an outbreak less likely, and also make it easier to quarantine people who have been infected.
But there is also a moral and humanitarian reason to get people out of these jails. The crime rate in our state didn’t quadruple in the last few years, but our jail population did. Many of the people now locked up aren’t there because they committed horrible crimes, they’re locked up because they’re too poor to afford bail. Some are even elderly and therefore at “higher risk for severe illness”, according to the CDC.
It is wrong to lock people up because they can’t afford to pay bail. If a judge has already decided that someone does not pose a threat to the community and they can get out of jail if they can pay a fee, then they shouldn’t be locked up at all during a crisis like this.Poverty is not a crime and under these circumstances, it should not put you at risk of contracting COVID-19.
Last month county jail inmates with bonds under $5,000 were ordered released in Autauga, Elmore and Chilton Counties, as long as the sheriffs and wardens sign off on it. Mobile Countyhas also announced it would release certain pre-trial inmates.. These actions were taken due to fears of the spread of COVID-19.
Other states have also started doing this. Montana, California, New Jersey, Washington and Wyoming are amongthe states that have actively worked to reduce it’s incarcerated population in the last few weeks.
Actions like these need to be the norm going forward. COVID-19 is scary, but we must meet it with Christian love and compassion. We must extend that to our brothers and sisters behind bars who pose no threat to our communities and are awaiting their day in court. We must consider those who are elderly and already ill. This virus is the worst thing many of us have seen in our lifetimes, let’s combat it with love and compassion, instead of hate and fear.
Opinion | Remembering civil rights icon Rev. Joseph E. Lowery
Co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, SCLC, Rev. Joseph E. Lowery died on March 27, 2020. He and his clerical brother, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. envisaged SCLC as the national platform needed to inveigh segregation, materialism, and militarism in the South and nation. King became the first SCLC president in 1957, a position he held until his assassination in 1968. Lowery headed SCLC from 1977 until 1997.
Born in Huntsville, Alabama, Lowery taught school in Birmingham before becoming a minister. He pastored his first church in the Magic City. He also led the Warren Street Methodist Church in Mobile, Alabama and became the leader of the Alabama Civic Affairs Association, the precursor of the Montgomery Improvement Association, MIA.
Perhaps less known is that Joseph Lowery was the last living co-defendant of the landmark Sullivan v. New York Times Company, a libel lawsuit filed by City of Montgomery and State of Alabama officials against the New York Times and Reverends Ralph D. Abernathy, Fred L. Shuttlesworth, Joseph E. Lowery, and Solomon S. Seay, Sr. Montgomery City Police Commissioner L. B. Sullivan, Public Affairs Commissioner Frank Parks, and Mayor Earl James filed $500,000,00 libel lawsuits each. Gov. John Patterson sued the same defendants adding Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for $1 million dollars.
The City and State alleged that the March 29, 1960 New York Times advertisement paid for by The Committee to Defend Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Struggle for Freedom in the South, defamed and libeled the plaintiffs by knowingly publishing false statements. A chief bone of contention was a paragraph, 39 words, describing actions of the City of Montgomery Police Department against Alabama State College students. On February 25, 1960, those same ASC students sat-in at the Montgomery County Courthouse Cafeteria. This was Alabama’s first sit-in demonstration. The ad claimed “police armed with shotguns and tear gas ringed the campus and padlocked the dining hall.”
The New York Times ad sought to raise funds for a trial Dr. King faced in Alabama for tax fraud. The City and State targeted the ministers because they were signatories to the ad. LorraineHansbury, Eleanor Roosevelt, Langston Hughes, Nat King Cole, and Ruby Dee, among others, also signed the ad. Defense counsel argued the Black ministers were included because of their friendships with Dr. King. The lawsuits sought to harass, harangue, and financially ruin these civil rights leaders. Temporarily, that is exactly what the suits accomplished. A collective judgment of $3 million dollars, and an inability to secure a surety bond, allowed the State to garnish the personal property of Abernathy, Seay, Shuttlesworth, and Lowery. Each saw their automobiles seized and sold. The Marengo County Sheriff also sold 300 acres of land owned by the Rev. Abernathy and his extended family since Reconstruction.
The New York Times won its appeal to redress the State cases in the federal courts. Montgomery County Senior Circuit Judge Walter B. Jones heard the original five cases. A racial cyborg, Jones pronounced from the bench that the Fourteenth Amendment was irrelevant in Alabama and that the Sullivantrial would be conducted “in the belief and knowledge that the white man’s justice . . . brought over to this country by the Anglo-Saxon Race . . . will give the parties at the Bar of this Court, regardless of race or color, equal justice under law.” Four years after it all began, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the judgments against the defendants.
As we pray for the repose of Rev. Joseph Echols Lowery, we should remember part of his prayer at President Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration; “We ask you [Lord] to help us work for that day when Black will not be asked to get back . . . and when white will embrace what is right.”
Alabama COVID-19 cases surpass 2,000; 53 deaths reported
Cases jump in Alabama nursing homes, tests still scarce, association says
Gov. Ivey launches state guide to COVID-19 relief efforts
How Alabama is tracking COVID-19 hospitalizations
BCA partners with Alabama Public Television to help small businesses
Behind the model that projected 5,500 deaths in Alabama — and why it changed
Opinion | Fear not, fight on and don’t faint
Opinion | Dr. King’s legacy lives on 52 years later
Over the last week, COVID-19 cases in Alabama increased faster than 40 other states
Montgomery’s Jackson Hospital near breaking point with COVID-19 patients, ER staff say
Lieutenant governor criticizes state’s lack of preparation, response to COVID-19
45 COVID-19 cases hospitalized at UAB, 18 on ventilators
Opinion | The conservative scam has been exposed
Growth of Alabama COVID-19 cases looks a lot like Louisiana. That should worry us
State Superintendent Mackey addresses concerns about plans for public schools
Gov. Kay Ivey orders Alabama to stay at home as cases near 1,500
Education5 days ago
State Superintendent Mackey addresses concerns about plans for public schools
Governor3 days ago
Gov. Kay Ivey orders Alabama to stay at home as cases near 1,500
Governor3 days ago
Governor prohibits evictions, foreclosures during COVID-19 outbreak
Health3 days ago
840 hospitalized with confirmed, suspected COVID-19 in Alabama