America The Beautiful No More

Last week, Senate Republicans confirmed their 23^rd federal appeals court judge, breaking a record for the number confirmed during a President's first two years. The previous record was set by President George H. W. Bush at 22 confirmations. "The Senate continues to confirm impressive nominees whom President Trump has asked to serve our country," said Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell. This opinion is contested by Senator Diane Feinstein who complained that the latest appointment was a man “who lacks judicial experience and has a blatantly political record.” 

Clearly, Republicans have rushed to confirm Trump's nominees for the bench while they enjoy a Senate majority. In addition, the probable confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court bench means the Republican Party will have soon a lock on and shape the direction of U.S. court rulings for decades. The appointees are all Republicans who share similar ideologies. Let’s not forget that a century ago, Republican ideology had it that if you were poor, it was a sin but if you were rich, it was a sign that you were favoured by God.

The Republicans in Congress, as well as the executive branch, give the impression that they have a divine right to rule. I am not saying that all Republicans are bad and all Democrats are good. However, Congressional Republicans enjoy so much power nowadays, not just because of their political majorities but also because the Democrats seem weak and rudderless. And in politics, perception is usually more important than reality.

Will the November mid-term elections change the balance in Congress? I shall be interested to see what big issues emerge in the campaign. There are three where the parties are poles apart. Immigration: Republicans want a strong, ‘keep out of America’ policy, Democrats are more measured. For example, they care about children being separated from their ‘illegal’ immigrant parents. Far too many Republican politicians don’t appear to be bothered about this. Guns: Republicans support Second Amendment rights, notwithstanding that mass shootings and murders occur with far too much regularity. The NRA and other gun groups are content they won’t be touched by the law. Their stance is: ‘people need weapons to defend themselves.’ I’d be curious to know how many gun holders have stayed safe by discharging their weapons first. Will their campaign contributions be publicised? Democrats favour more gun control but know it is a lost cause. The courts are against them.

Finally, Abortion: Democrats are inclined to be pro-choice, Republicans generally are pro-life and support the dismantling of Roe v Wade. Interestingly, the President believes the decision should not rest with the federal government; it is an issue for the individual states. He may be right. However, those who support pro-life, coupled with the right to force a woman to give birth, surely should accept some responsibility for the welfare and upbringing of the child? In western society, rights are balanced with equal responsibility.

On these three issues, it seems the Republicans have a lot of support from voters. Does this mean that the Democrats will lose in November? The polls currently indicate a swing to the Democrats but this side of the aisle needs to do better than simply concentrate on Trump’s shortcomings. In contrast, the Trump administration and its political supporters are not bothered by the President’s well-publicised positions on women, minorities and people of colour. There is even support for his position on water-boarding. Evidently it is alright to drown a man half to death.

Once Trump was elected to the White House, theory has it that he became the President of all the people, not just those who voted for him. This is not evident in his acts. For example, take the American environment. Reviving the coal industry may be good for a few people in Pennsylvania but there is no such thing as clean coal, whatever the executive branch and environment ‘experts’ might say. Scott Pruitt, the discredited and sacked Secretary of State for the Environment, has left an Environment Protection Agency whose staff fear their ability to protect public health is much diminished.

The Trump administration has no record worth mentioning on the environment. To pull out of the Paris Accords on grounds of cost is ridiculous. If Planet Earth is irretrievably damaged, how will future generations benefit, let alone exist? But the Republicans are in charge and too often demonstrate a lack of caring about the human race. Their attitude, harnessed by America First, is so misguided.

Trump bleats about unfair trade and how America has been robbed by China and the European Union nations, not to mention its neighbour, Canada. The administration has imposed savage trade tariffs. Congress did nothing to stop it. Under the Commerce clause in the Constitution, Congress had the legal right to intervene but didn’t do so. Now Trump finds he has to bail out American farmers to the tune of $12 billion because of tariffs.

Trump’s aim is to hit those who trade with America by stopping imports. For example, foreign steel prices have risen by 25% for American buyers. In turn, this forces American industry to buy American, so the theory goes. World trade is complicated. It is probable that in the short term, the American steel industry cannot supply the type of steel required by American manufacturers and when it can, the cost will not be competitive for buyers. Furthermore, American exporters will find their markets cut off in the tit-for-tat tariff exchanges. Trump ignored advice from experts and the history of trade wars. He relied on instinct. Congress should have stopped him. When standing up to the man in the Oval Office, Congress has taken a knee.

Trump does not seem to rely on research, just hunches or gut, and he notoriously fails to study briefs. He seems to rely almost exclusively on Fox News for facts. His tax breaks for American workers are working in the short term but at a savage cost. The poor will not benefit and welfare programmes will be scrapped. So, in my eyes, this makes Trump the President for the upper middle classes and, especially, the wealthy, his friends, his donors and himself.

I believe Trump socialises with and speaks to a very small group of people, mostly billionaires, who believe everything has a price and profit is all-important. Others in Trump’s coterie are Republicans who believe America and its institutions belong to them.  I include in this the Republicans in Congress, the Supreme Court and, of course, the White House. These people give the clear impression they will stop at nothing to keep what they now hold. Many welcomed, some retrospectively, Russian interference in the 2016 election to defeat Hillary Clinton. This is in direct contravention to what the Founding Fathers wanted, not to mention the law.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both warned against foreign entanglements, so it is never surprising when a President moves towards isolationism. All Presidents practice America First, regardless of political persuasion. Trump didn’t invent it. But unlike his predecessors, he behaves as if the rest of the free world, including America’s firm allies, are less than secondary. Instead, he cosies up to North Korea and Russia, his nation’s sworn enemies. He relies on gut instinct that he can make a better deal than anyone else with these duplicitous regimes.

In the past week or so, he has insulted the German Chancellor, suggesting Germany is in thrall to Russia because of energy supply. Who else will the Russians sell to? Next he came to UK where he diminished our Prime Minister by telling her she had messed up Brexit, and admonished her for not following his advice on Brexit. Whilst it’s true that the negotiations with EU have so far been slow and unproductive, the intervention of the President gives energy to those in the EU with whom Mrs May must negotiate.

Then Trump went to Helsinki where he asked to kiss Mr Putin’s posterior. “No,” he said, “Mr Putin and Russia did not interfere in the 2016 Presidential election.” Two days later, Trump walked this statement back. “I misspoke,” he said. He asserted he meant the very opposite of what he had said. Could it be advisers told him that even the friendliest of Republican leadership, as well as the media, were up in arms? Make no mistake, Mr Trump is a loose cannon, a danger to world peace and world economics, not to mention linguistic accuracy and truth.

When it comes to foreign policy, does the middle-American public care? The evidence suggests it does not. This is one reason why the Republicans may do far better than expected. Isolationism plays well in the Rust Belt and parts of the Mid-west. Here we find Trump people, those disaffected by politicians and who hate the elite.

I await the next few months with both interest and dread. It will be a nasty campaign. My biggest fear is that American politicians will behave so badly that America’s political divisiveness will become explosively worse. Times have indeed changed since President Obama.

Supreme Politics

Looking ahead to the next few weeks in Washington, what is on the horizon? Much as those of us who live outside USA are worried by Trump’s foreign policy – trash your allies and fawn over your enemies – those Americans who see no issue with isolationism will not be concerned. However, I hope the ‘misspeak’ with ‘would’ for ‘wouldn’t’ could come back to haunt the President. Nobody, surely, is fooled by him. But will the American public care?

Might Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School return to the news cycle? 157 days ago in Parkland, Florida, Nikolas Cruz killed seventeen students and teachers and wounded seventeen others. The media suggested it was a turning point in the fight against guns. But what have the politicians done? Nothing. All the promises are in dust and the media has forgotten another American mass shooting. Yet again, the NRA has triumphed.

The Mueller Inquiry drags on. More indictments were made last week but the inquiry has taken a very long time and still there is no link into the Oval Office. The President tweets and fumes about the process but if he did collude with the Russians to damage Clinton’s election campaign there will be a price to pay. But not yet.

The story that might dominate the summer months is the nomination for the Supreme Court. Two weeks ago, I wrote about the retirement of Justice Kennedy. The President has nominated The Honourable Brett Kavanaugh to replace Kennedy on the Supreme Court bench. I suspect Justice Kennedy will be pleased. Kavanaugh is a judge in Kennedy’s image. Perhaps the President privately assured Kennedy of his likely successor to encourage the retirement. As a top aide to President George W. Bush, the nomination will help bring support of the politically formidable Bush family. The nomination will also delight partisan legislators who are looking to restrict abortion, women’s rights and LGBT, support gun ownership, ensure a lack of restriction on campaign finance and pass restrictive immigration laws.

Kavanaugh has a record, a paper trail of decisions on and off the bench, to establish his right wing, conservative record. He played a part in the Clinton impeachment as part of prosecutor Ken Starr’s team. He helped write the indictment, the Bills of Impeachment. He has made conservative judicial decisions on affirmative action and abortion cases. He was regarded by many as a political operative and rubber stamp for the George W. Bush administration. That is one of the reasons why it took him three years to be confirmed for the federal bench.

In my earlier blog, I explained the nomination process for a SCOTUS hopeful. I expect the Senate Republicans to press for early confirmation hearings, in contrast to what they did when Antonin Scalia died. The Republicans delayed an Obama nomination, stating the non-existent rule that vacancies should not be filled in the last year of an administration. Sadly, Obama did not fight the issue.

The Republicans will have an eye on the 6^th November, the date when America goes to the polls in the mid-term elections. Currently, Senate Republicans enjoy a narrow 51 – 49 majority. However, Republican Senator John McCain is unwell and is very unlikely to be well enough to attend the Senate and vote. It’s simple math. If all Senators vote on party lines, ultimately the nomination will go through.

But nothing in American politics is simple, nor is there ever a given in Washington. There are seven senators, four of them Democrats and three Republicans, who will be under enormous pressure when it comes to the Senate vote on the confirmation. The potential Republican nay voters are Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Susan Collins (Maine) and Rand Paul (Kentucky). Both Murkowski and Collins are strong supporters of abortion rights enshrined in Roe v Wade. Indeed, Collins is on record that she will oppose a nominee hostile to Roe. Kavanaugh, a Roman Catholic, is thought likely to support a reversal of Roe.

Paul is in the potential nay camp for a different reason. He strongly disagrees with Kavanaugh on the meaning of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any search warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Paul has shown little reluctance to defy Senate GOP leaders and the White House to make a point on civil liberties and other privacy issues. If these three Republican Senators vote “no”, the numbers would be Republicans 47 (if McCain makes no appearance), Democrats 49.

Some political observers suggest that Republican senators Jeff Fiske of Arizona and Ben Sasse of Nebraska may vote against Kavanaugh. Both have often denounced the President but do not use strong leverage. Fiske is retiring from Congress which my make him a tough target for a yes vote.

So to get his nomination through, Trump might need to enlist three or four Democrats. Heidi Heitkamp (North Dakota) is coming up for re-election in a Republican state. Oddly, she seems to be getting support from the White House. Joe Donnelly (Indiana) is also up for re-election in November in a red (Republican) state. He has voted against Trump on big issues like the tax bill but he may not be able to separate himself from Trump policies in this Mid-west state. Joe Machin (West Virginia) has an election to fight in November in a state won by Trump in double digits. He voted to confirm Gorsuch. Doug Jones (Alabama) won a Special Election last year and might have to cross party lines because of pressure in his home state.   

I have no crystal ball. I don’t know the pace of the confirmation hearings and whether the Senate will vote before the mid-terms. I don’t know which, if any, senators will cross party lines, so I don’t know the outcome. What I do know is the Supreme Court is nothing if not political in its processes and landing a judge on the Supreme Court bench is often a rough and nasty course. I doubt Kavanaugh’s confirmation will be any different.

Why is this so important? Politicians come and go but Supreme Court justices are on the bench for life. They have not only the opportunity but also the right to change American law elating to business, culture, economics, minorities, and all processes of American life for years, if not decades. A future liberal executive and Congress will have a stumbling block in their way with a 6-3 conservative court. This would not be the first time. Take a look at the early years of the FDR administration for proof. The court tore down the first New Deal. Trump may be gone soon but his influence on American life would be felt for generations.

 

America on the Move

Like many others, I am fed up with the ways of Washington and Westminster. It’s summer, time for a break, an opportunity to get away from the trials and tribulations of the so-called political leaders and their disturbing utterances. Here in England, lots of people fly to Spain or Italy to get away, as well as motoring to France. The lunatic fringe go to Florida, a state where the inhabitants leave in July and August, if they are wise. No disrespect intended but who wants to stay in a humid furnace? The Brits, of course!

In America, people often get in their cars and go. The romance of the open road, or of reinvention and free mobility, seems to be part of the American Dream. Think how many songs and books describe it: Paul Simon, The Eagles, Kerouac and Steinbeck to name a few classics.

When I started my travels to the States in the late 1960s and early 1970s, I noticed that gas (petrol) prices went up substantially in June. I was confused. Why would this be? Surely more energy is consumed in the winter? One of my relatives patted me on the head and explained. “Supply and demand. School is out at the end of June. That’s when America goes travelling by car.”

Of course, he was right. Kids in America get out of school for the long summer vacation, stretching from mid-June to early-September. Years ago, American children were needed on the farm to help with the harvest. Time has moved on and nowadays many American families drive thousands of miles to visit relatives and friends and see the sights. Packing the family Studebaker and Buick (love the old names) with children, luggage and dog is the way to go.

Sometimes things come unstuck. When Mitt Romney was running for President, a story emerged that on a Romney family trip in June, 1983, the Romney car was so full, they packed their dog, Seamus, in a carrier on the roof of the station wagon. Seamus got diarrhea. Romney stopped at a gas station to wash the dog, the carrier and the car and continued on his way. During an interview with ABC News in his run for the presidency, Romney was asked about the incident and if he would take a dog on another journey like he did in 1983. He replied: “Certainly not with the attention it’s received.” He lost the dog-lovers’ vote.

According to Portrait of American Travelers magazine, road trips in 2015 represented approximately 22% of vacations taken by Americans. A year later that number jumped to 39%. In 2017, the upward trend continued. Many Americans see no need for a passport. They like to stay within their country. This is not just practical. America has an infinite number of beauty spots and places of interest. In addition, the flexibility of being able to stop along the way wherever you want influences the decision to use a car. It’s less expensive than fly/drive and a road trip offers more options in terms of schedule. Travellers can relax, leave at the last minute, and discover historical sites, local cuisine, museums, shopping, hiking, festivals and theme parks along the way.

I have been lucky enough to have experienced many wonderful road trips in USA, north, east and west. My American wife is a Yankee yet we managed to have a great time in Virginia, North and South Carolina and Georgia. I have seen the craggy coast of Maine and the tsunami coast of Oregon. I have driven by Big Sur and US1 from San Francisco into Oregon. I travelled through the South-west states of Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico in a huge RV, taking in the Grand Canyon, Monument Valley, the Painted Desert, Mesa Verde, and many other wonderful sights on the way. The Native American reservations were a sight to be seen and marvelled at.

Possibly my favourite trip took us from Minnesota into South Dakota and its Black Hills, Badlands, Mount Rushmore and the even more impressive Crazy Horse Monument. Through Wyoming and Montana, there are the National Parks of Glacier, Yellowstone and Grand Tetons and the Moonscape in Idaho. In these States it was de rigeur for me to wear hats in restaurants. If I had brought my cowboy hat with me, I’d have made myself at home. Then through Oregon and Washington, ending in Seattle, we travelled almost 6,000 miles of the most amazing countryside and interesting people of America’s North-west.

The key to all these trips is timing. The American family usually travels in summer when it can be ferociously hot. Places like Yellowstone could have temperatures in the 90s and be crowded. We tended to go in April/May or September/October, when the seniors are in evidence.

There are tips I could give but it’s also fun to find out for yourselves. However, if you travel ‘out of season’, it is amazing how many places are sparsely populated and driving becomes a real pleasure. It’s very much the open road. But you need a sat nav, a smart phone and/or iPad so you can find accommodation as you go. Taking pot luck can be a risk.

Sadly, anno domini has caught up with me and I have to accept I have made my last road trip in USA. I’ll now explore the beauties of the North of England and Scotland, at least for a while, so long at the authorities here don’t remove my driver’s licence on grounds of old age and decrepitude. There is also the risk that one of my daughters will remove my car keys but I’ll keep hold of the Jag as long as I can.

Hopefully, wherever I go, I will avoid those who create trouble, disturbance and terror in the corridors of Westminster and the byways of DC. It would be so tempting to tell these people to get lost and replace them with those who have less ideology and more common sense.

 

Why is President Trump Coming to UK?

There is an assumption, first created by PM Winston Churchill and President Franklin Roosevelt during World War II that a “special relationship” exists between UK and USA. At grass roots level, this is right. Citizens of both countries share much in culture, attitudes, democratic values and sometimes even language! However, at the highest levels, sometimes the relationship is hardly civil, let alone special.

At the end of the War, the UK was bankrupt. America, under Truman and Treasury Secretary Morgenthau, negotiated a loan that kept us afloat but its terms were harsh. UK only repaid the loan in full just a few years ago. The US struck a very hard bargain.

Years on, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan thought John Kennedy was naïve and would do Macmillan’s bidding on the world stage. That went well! Macmillan got the equivalent of a diplomatic black eye. During the Vietnam War, President Johnson wanted the British to join. He pleased with PM Harold Wilson to send a brigade or even a lesser number of troops so America could allege it led a substantial coalition. Wilson would have no part of it. Oddly, thirty plus years on, Prime Minister Tony Blair and his cabinet were suckered into the Iran War and the War on Terror. His premiership was wrecked as a result.

When I hear a Prime Minister tell our media, “The President and I are standing shoulder to shoulder on this issue,” either the President is a midget or the PM is standing on a tall crate. Either way, the relationship between our countries at high levels is fragile at best. It is being tested to the extremes by President Trump because of his imposition of trade tariffs and attacks on world institutions. I know of no support for Trump in UK, save perhaps from certain members and ex-members of United Kingdom Independence Party, like Nigel Farrage, who want UK out of Europe. Put bluntly, Mr Trump is unpopular and now wanted here by the general populace.

So I have questions about the American President’s visit this month. Is Mr Trump superstitious? If so, why has he chosen Friday the 13^th July to land on our shores? Will the sky fall down or the heavens collapse? Will the security, costing me £5 million – okay, other taxpayers are contributing – be enough? What kind of reception can he expect from the Brits? How will Fox News cope if they are obliged to show locals at their most fervent, giving POTUS the finger? I can hear Sean Hannity: “the extension of a British middle finger or the use of two fingers in a V sign is the height of approval in the UK.” Such a sign can be the height of rudeness here unless the palm of the hand faces outward.

What is the President’s interest in the visit? It is not a one-off. Before he lands here, he is going to Brussels for a NATO summit. Was his trip here an afterthought or did he want something for home consumption. He has been disrespecting NATO members and the very ethos of the institution so he can hardly expect adulation from the Belgians.

Post-war Presidents visiting these shores, especially Kennedy, Clinton and Obama, have received the warmest of welcomes. Her Majesty the Queen has met every American President from Truman to Obama, bar one. Johnson never visited. There are sound reasons why we British should regard Mr Trump as hostile. We are at war with the US. True, it’s a trade tariff war at the moment but it was started by America. Since we are looking for an American trade deal, in the current climate one would think there is no chance.

I suppose Trump is happy with the photo opportunities offered from meeting The Queen, either at Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle. I feel for our head of state, having to make nice with a man who openly disrespects women and insults women of power, but who happens to be America’s head of state. Mr Trump may lengthen his visit and go to Turnberry for a round of golf on a course owned by one of his corporations. If so, will he be able to resist promoting his development? By doing so, he would commit an impeachable offence. Does he care?

Why are the Brits welcoming him to our shores? What do we expect to benefit from the Trump trip? The Obama administration warned we’d be put at the back of the queue if we wanted a new trade deal after leaving the EU. Mr Trump might view things differently but not if the tariff wars continue. It will be a hard road for Mrs May to travel. But if Trump is not coming for a trade deal, why is he bothering? Is a photo op enough to warrant all the fuss? Given his taste for razzamatazz and shadow over substance, photos of him and Her Majesty may well be sufficient motivation.

A good friend who has lived in the States for more than forty years told me: “My attitude to Trump has been to ignore what he says and watch what he does.  Some things have fared well, particularly the economy and deregulation.  Other things have not fared at all well.  However, the battle is lost and I join the ranks who would like to see him vacate the office (but not by impeachment, an ugly and damaging process).  What has tipped me is his isolationism and attitudes towards trade and international organizations which are borne of ignorance and bigotry and now those forces extend to those lawfully here but without guaranty.”

With the disastrous mishandling of the Brexit negotiations, UK is now a hostage to fortune. We need trade deals with the likes of America, China and India. Early deals with our soon-to-be former European partners will be difficult to reach. So, as much as we may not like it, we need to suck it up and deal with Mr Trump and his administration by ignoring the unpleasant and distasteful rhetoric and trying to do business.

 

The Supremes Are Back, Front and Centre

Two weeks ago, my blog anticipated the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy from the Supreme Court. Kennedy, 81 years old, has now decided to go. Immediately, D.C. went into a frenzy. Mind you it always does when a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court. It’s a field day for lobbyists and the media, let alone the politicians. I do not use the word ‘frenzy’ lightly. The last Trump appointee, Neil Gorsuch, must have felt he was in a Reality TV show as the President turned the nomination into show biz. Presumably, the latest nominee will receive similar treatment.

If you are going to follow the story over the next few weeks and, possibly, months it is important to know the rules. The Constitution grants to the President the right to nominate justices to the Supreme Court. However, all nominations are subject to the advice and consent of the US Senate. I’ve never understood the advice part but consent is clear. The Senate is no stranger to refusing confirmation of nominees. Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork to the bench. Senate Democrats and Republicans alike remembered Bork’s role in Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre. Bork didn’t stand a chance of getting the Senate nod. When George W. Bush nominated his family lawyer, Harriet Miers, to the Bench, the choice was universally lampooned. Miers withdrew in the knowledge that the Senate would never confirm her.

The Senate’s nuclear weapon on appointments was the filibuster. To defeat a filibuster required 60 votes. By 2013, President Obama was stymied so badly by Republican filibusters which held up numerous approval of lower court judges and cabinet nominees. Vacancies on the bench and unconfirmed cabinet members were hampering both justice and government departments. To end the delays, Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reed, triggered a change in Senate rules. No longer would a filibuster be available to the opposition for lower court appointments and cabinet nominees. Consent by a simple majority would suffice.

What goes around comes around. Four years later, the Republicans took advantage of the rule change by ramping it up. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican majority leader, had a rule change passed, removing filibuster rights for Supreme Court nominations. This ensured that conservative judge Gorsuch’s appointment would be approved. The next vacancy to be filled by President Trump will not have to overcome the Senate filibuster. So, what can the Democrats do to defeat a nomination within the Senate rules?

Once the President makes his choice, the Senate Judiciary Committee of eleven Republican and ten Democratic senators will consider it. They will question the nominee and examine the testimonies of witnesses. This process can take days and, indeed, weeks.  In all probability, the committee will vote on partisan lines but if something scandalous or unacceptable is discovered, the committee could decline the nomination.

Assuming the committee approves the nomination, it goes to the Senate for ‘and up and down’ vote. Currently, the Senate is split 51/49 in favour of the Republicans. If one Republican senator refuses approval, the vote is tied and Vice President Pence will have the deciding vote. Thus the Senate Democrats need all their 49 votes plus two Republican senators to reject a nomination. This is not an impossibility. Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski both support abortion rights and voted against the bill that would have unwound Obamacare. Murkowski may be opposed to another conservative judge. Collins this weekend stated on CNN’s “State of the Union” she would not vote for a Trump nominee who would not support Roe v Wade. Add into the mix that Arizona Senator John McCain is ill and may not be able to vote with the Republicans, a Trump appointee may have a hard time getting approval.

In addition, Democrat senators could resort to extreme procedural moves, for example refusing to attend the Senate and denying a quorum. I can find no precedent for this. One thing is certain. The nomination will have little to do with merits but everything to do with politics.  Another conservative justice on the Bench will likely mean a 6-3 majority for the political right. This is fine if you are white, wealthy and conservative but not if you’re poor and a person of colour. What will happen with abortion rights, healthcare, gun control and control of money in politics? From my standpoint, nothing good happens if the Court is politically and ideologically biased.

However, Congress and the Supreme Court has never failed to provide surprises. In 1937, FDR celebrated an election win with a proposal to increase the size of the Supreme Court with the addition of six new justices “to help with the heavy work load.” FDR was angry with the Court for ripping up the first New Deal programmes. The proposal went to Congress where the Democrats enjoyed heavy majorities. They turned FDR down. The message was, “don’t mess with our Institutions and the separation of powers.”

In 1952, Eisenhower had a serious rival for the Presidency, Earl Warren, the popular governor of California. The story goes that Warren agreed to drop out of the race for the White House and if Ike won - virtually a certainty - Warren would be nominated for the next Supreme Court vacancy. In September 1953, Chief Justice Fred Vinson died and Ike was a good as his word. Warren was nominated and became the next Chief Justice. “Why not,” argued Ike, “he’s one of us.” Well, Warren was not “one of us.” He was particularly concerned with race relations and civil rights.

What followed was the 1954 ruling in Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. Warren persuaded all his fellow associate justices to bring a 9-0 decision that outlawed racial segregation in public schools. Ike was incensed. “How do you do this? You can’t change people’s minds, can you?” was his reaction. He is also believed to have said, “If I knew that son-of-a-bitch would do this, I’d never have appointed him.”

I cannot consider all the variables of the prospective new Bench appointment. They are infinite. For example, Congress will soon be in recess. Trump could make a recess appointment to avoid the fuss but it would only last a year and I doubt the nominee would agree. This one is a real “watch this space.”