How Rudy Giuliani is Keeping His Poisonous Legacy Alive with Donald Trump's Campaign

by Nomad

The other day, the New York Times gave this warning to former New York City mayor and avid Trump supporter, 72-year-old Rudy Giuliani:
Rudy's ardent support for Mr. Trump could come at a cost to his legacy.

That's what happens, I suppose, when you attempt to defend indefensible things. Former Giuliani aides, the article claims, are concerned about their ex-boss' unquestioning loyalty to the Republican nominee.

They cited his unsubstantiated questioning of Hillary Clinton’s mental and physical health.  He has also championed Trump's promise to build an “impenetrable physical wall” on the country’s southern border and to severely restrict immigration from Muslim countries. (When Trump was pressed for specifics, he began to sound more and more supportive of what is presently being done by the Obama administration.) 

So strident - some would say delirious- has been Giuliani's support for Trump, the editorial boards of some newspapers have raised the possibility that Rudy is "unhinged."

But then, in this election, how on earth could you know? 

Republican Teddy Roosevelt's Timely Warning about GOP Nominee Donald Trump

by Nomad

Sovereignty and Due Process : A Tale of Two Traffic Stops in Mississippi

by Nomad

Here's a post about two traffic stops in Mississippi and two very different outcomes. How much did race play a factor in how the incidents were handled? When it comes to allegations of police brutality, are we missing the big picture about the violations to every citizen's right to due process?

When Slidell Mississippi police officers pulled over the green Ford Ranger, it was just a routine traffic stop. They had observed the driver violating several traffic laws on Fremaux Avenue.  

It was immediately clear that the driver, 54-year-old James Doyle Webb, was going to be a problem. He refused to give the police his driver’s license, registration or insurance. Instead, he declared himself a "sovereign citizen" and demanded the officers’ names and badge numbers, according to the Slidell police department press release. The police obliged Webb and yet, when the officers again requested to review Webb's papers, he refused to recognize to cooperate in any way.

Ancient Greek Wisdom on the Risk of Political Apathy

by Nomad

Awakening an Insidious Evil: Why Trump Has Made a Farce of the SCOTUS Ruling on Voting Rights Act

by Nomad

Three years ago, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court declared that times had changed when it came to race and voter discrimination. Justice Roberts hadn't counted on the cynical tactics of Donald Trump.

On 24 June 2013, in the case of Shelby County, Alabama b. US Attorney General Holder   the Supreme Court struck down one of the key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The following day, the "deeply disappointed" President Obama issued a statement in which he called the ruling "a setback" but not the end of efforts to eliminate voting discrimination.

This landmark Civil Rights Era legislation was instrumental in ensuring that discriminatory practices based on race were finally and completely abolished. One problem that had faced legislators and justices was the question of states rights vs. federal authority. 

The 1965 legislation ended that. After the enactment of the law, certain states, mostly in the South, were required to submit any election law changes for federal approval. 

The reason was basic. 

Free and fair elections were too important to be left to whims of the local governments which, minorities claimed, was infested with both open and covert racists. On those states, federal oversight was required to ensure fair elections.

The 2013 decision split the high court along ideological lines, five to four.  The New York Times reported:

At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.

Conservatives on the Supreme Court said that the need to maintain strict federal oversight was in 2013 a thing of the past. 

In the Words of Justice Roberts

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. who wrote for the majority explained that our country had changed. When the Voting Rights Act was enacted, attitudes on racial discrimination were very different.  The chief justice concluded that 

times have changed: the formulas that govern singling out one state from another for different treatment, which once "made sense," have lost their relevance, and "nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically."