58 Blank Slate Media Newspapers, Friday, April 21, 2017
READERS WRITE
Trump election only benefiting Trump Inc.
I
t took 12 weeks, but Donald Trump seems to have finally figured out a better way to command the attention and approval his huge ego needs and expects. All those executive orders he signed didn’t do the trick. They could be undermined by a “socalled judge,” “disgraceful” judicial proceedings” and “political” courts. And those promises to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act required Congressional action which Mr. Trump could not command. But firing 59 missiles on a Syrian airport and dropping “the most powerful conventional bomb in the American arsenal” on ISIS caves in Afghanistan doesn’t seem to need judicial or legislative approval.
And it certainly got everyone’s attention. That the strikes don’t reflect any articulated policy that advances our national security seems beside the point. Hasn’t Mr. Trump been telling us for years that it is in our national interest to stay out of Syria? That Congressional Republicans who couldn’t bring themselves to authorize President Barack Obama to respond militarily to Syria’s chemical weapon arsenal in 2013 are now hailing Trump’s unauthorized strikes is something for pundits to mull over. For cynics like me, though, it seems the perfect way to divert public attention from Mr. Trump’s failure to deliver on promises made and Russia’s role in his election.
And Mr. Trump is playing an extremely dangerous game with our national security if he is using military means to boost his sagging poll numbers. Moreover, those who believe that Mr. Trump is learning on the job are wrong on two counts. Mr. Trump simply bobs and weaves his way from one issue to the next, channel surfing like any ordinary television viewer, and reacting to the on-screen images without ever connecting the dots. The only thing he may have learned is that the tweets of the Oval Office occupant get lots of media attention and that’s what his hyper-inflated ego requires. Consistent and coherent policies are not required. As for “the job,” that depends on whether his job is advancing the interests
of the United States or those of the Trump Organization and whether those interests are best handled from the White House or Mar-a-Lago and Trump golf courses. Mr. Trump seems to have reversed Charles E. Wilson’s 1953 words (“what was good for our country was good for General Motors”), placing the good of the Trump Organization ahead of the nation. Also, it should be noted that, unlike Mr. Trump, Mr. Wilson agreed to sell his G.M. stock to avoid a conflict of interest. With little to show after 12 weeks in office, it seems that Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization are the clear beneficiaries of Mr. Trump’s election. Jay N. Feldman Port Washington
Rabbi should study modern history
I
am writing this letter in response to that written by Rabbi Judy CohenRosenberg in the Friday, April 14, 2017 printing of the Roslyn Times. The rabbi seems to resent the fact that the Republicans “pushed through” the confirmation of Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court “and even changed the rules to do it.” I have no idea regarding the age of the rabbi. Perhaps she is quite young. So I would like to illuminate her with a little history regarding the confirmation of Supreme Court justices. As a rabbi, I understand she had to study ancient biblical texts. But in this case, I wonder if she ever looked as far back as 1987 before writing this uninformed letter. Previous to that date, there was more of the bipartisan support that the rabbi laments does not exist now. The Senate, with rare exceptions, usually confirmed the nominee of the President. It was done out of respect for the office. The few exceptions included corrupt judges or judges with a history of supporting segregation. Other than that, most confirmations were routine. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. It was then that things changed. Robert Bork was certainly highly qualified. As an aside, he actually taught Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham when they were students attending Yale Law School. The Democrats, now enthralled with a more radical leftist ideology than previously, would not confirm Robert Bork. Senator Ted Kennedy launched into a tirade of character assassination further amplified by the media. It is then that bipartisan respect for judgeships disinte-
grated if the nominee was from a Republican president. So dear Rabbi, if I may paraphrase you, “it is the Democrats who turned back the clock on the Senate traditions that sought to garner bipartisan support.” This outrage actually led to the creation of a verb, to be “borked” which means to have your character systematically assassinated in public hearings and in the press. In 1990, President George Bush (the first) nominated Clarence Thomas to the Court. The Democrats tried to destroy that nomination too, by slandering the judge with accusations of sexual harassment. The hearings of this nomination were widely televised. Despite the vicious attacks, Judge Thomas was confirmed and sits on the court to this very day.. President Clinton succeeded President Bush. He nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the Supreme Court. Despite the tactics that the Democrats had previously used, the Republicans cooperated and both were easily confirmed. I might add that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is one of the most incompetent, bigoted, and narrow-minded judges to ever be seated. Stephen Breyer is no day at the beach either. When the second George Bush was elected, the Democrats added a further downward trajectory. They did not want George Bush to nominate too many conservatives to the lower courts. Prominent jurists and the National Women’s Law Center actually stated, “there was no obligation to confirm someone just because they are scholarly or erudite.” In other words, the respect for a President to nominate well qualified jurists
was to be trampled. The Democrats began to filibuster judicial nominees to the Circuit Courts. Miguel Estrada was the first nominee to the Court of Appeals ever to be filibustered. Nine other conservative nominees, yes, nine others, were also filibustered. Are you keeping track, rabbi? The Republicans were able to overcome this despicable maneuver when George Bush won election a second time. They picked up extra Senate seats and were able to confirm two Supreme Court nominees, Sam Alito and John Roberts. President Bush wanted to nominate a Supreme Court justice in his last year should one vacate. Several names that you might recognize told the President that he had no right to nominate someone in the last year of his Presidency. Why? Just because they said so. No other reason needed. You might recognize the names of some of those people, i.e. senators Biden, Obama, and Schumer. Let us not forget House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi. President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayer to the Supreme Court in 2009. She was confirmed easily although, I believe, she is one of the most intellectually unqualified candidates ever to be approved. At this point, the Senate was controlled by the Democrats. The Republicans now thought it was their turn to do what the Democrats had previously done. They began to filibuster Obama nominees. It was then that the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, invoked the “Nuclear Option.” Rabbi, if I may quote you again, “As a faith leader, I am deeply troubled that the
Senate majority invoked the “Nuclear Option.” as it sets a precedent...” Tell me Rabbi, were you deeply troubled when Harry Reid did this? Are you ignorant of all this or are you just being deceitful? Judge Scalia died in 2016. Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace him. The Republicans, in turn, told Obama that he had no right to nominate a judge in the last year of his presidency. They refused to give him a hearing. The sauce that’s good for the goose is the sauce that’s good for the gander. You can tell that to Biden, Obama, Schumer, and Pelosi. When President Trump nominated the highly qualified Neil Gorsuch, Sen. Schumer arranged a filibuster for the first time in Senate history on a Supreme Court candidate for ideological reasons alone. The only other time a filibuster was used was on Abe Fortas, in 1968. This was due to charges of corruption, not ideology. Thankfully, Judge Gorusch has been confirmed. So I conclude that it has been the historical ruthlessness of the Democrats that have politicized and polarized judicial nominations. In closing, dear rabbi, I noticed you proudly placed in your byline that you are a board member of Planned Parenthood of Nassau County. While this is off topic, I wonder how you reconcile your being a rabbi with the rendering of abortions and the selling of fetal tissue for profit. Does that violate Jewish law? Just asking. Dr. Wayne Roth Roslyn Heights