Mediaboss Marketing

With Republicans dominating the White House, Congress and state governments, its no surprise that dominating the judiciary is the next goal. Efforts to control that independent branch of government have prompted debate on an obscure Senate rule called the blue-slip process.

Billionaire industrialist brothers David and Charles Koch, among leaders of the effort, urged supporters at a recent private retreat to work against the rule. The 100-year-old rule keeps judicial nominees from moving forward in Senate confirmation if a home-state senator objects.

The slim Republican margin in the U.S. Senate 52-48 has party bigwigs concerned that if the practice isnt eliminated, Democrats will retain too much power to delay or derail President Donald Trumps federal court nominees.

The Kochs one-page document on the rule urged attendees, who included many important Republicans, to press the issue with the Senates GOP leadership and other Republican senators they know. Tell them not to allow needless delay tactics and obstruction of the process, the document read.

The stakes are high. Trump arrived in office with more than 100 vacancies to fill on the federal bench, partly because Senate Republicans blocked many of President Barack Obamas nominees.

Nine of the countrys 13 federal appeals courts currently have a majority of Democratic presidents nominees. Among the 179 appeals court seats there are 21 vacancies. Trump has announced nine nominees for those courts and 22 for 107 lower court openings.

Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is pushing back. She says ending the practice would allow nominees to be hand-picked by right-wing groups, and accused the White House, the Koch brothers, and the conservative Judicial Crisis Network of falsely suggesting Democrats are trying to obstruct presidential nominees.

Democratic senators are considering nominees fairly, and many have long judicial records home-state senators must review carefully, Feinstein says. Scrutiny is most important when home-state senators were not consulted before nominees were chosen, she says, adding, and that goes for Democrats and Republicans.

Congressional rules that aim to keep the branches of government operating within the two-party system must be carefully preserved. If they work for both Democrats and Republicans, the party in the majority shouldnt opt to exercise their authority because it will come back to bite them.

Witness Democratic senators response to the Republican blockade of Obamas nominees in 2013. They changed the rules to allow simple-majority approval of judicial or executive branch nominations, enabling them to win swift victories for the presidents picks. That backfired when Democrats lost the majority and Republicans could approve Trumps Cabinet nominees with the lower, 51-vote threshold.

Americas federal court system is not perfect, but its not rigged, as Trump asserted. Efforts by billionaires to undermine judicial independence threaten our democracy.

See original here:
Editorial: Maintaining an independent judiciary is critical for democracy - STLtoday.com

President Pranab Mukherjee hailed on Sunday Indias democracy and Parliament in particular, delivering an emotional farewell speech at the Central Hall where he urged lawmakers to debate, discuss and dissent but not disrupt. (Presidents speech: Full text)

Mukherjee, the 13th President of India, will leave the Rashtrapati Bhawan on Tuesday when his successor Ram Nath Kovind is sworn in.

I strived to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, not just in word but also in spirit, Mukherjee said, reflecting upon his time as Indias titular head of state that began in 2012.

The President has raised eyebrows last year when he ordered the dismissal of the Uttarakhand government.

Mukherjee spent 37 years as a Congress member in Parliament, where, he said on Sunday, realised how disruption hurts the opposition more than the government as it denies them the opportunity to raise the concerns of the people, the President said.

The monsoon session of Parliament currently underway has seen repeated adjournments, costing of time and money for the House. Both Houses of Parliament have often been marred by protests that have delayed the rollout of key legislation.

When Parliament fails to discharge its lawmaking role or enacts laws without discussion, I feel it breaches the trust reposed in it by the people of this great country, he said.

In addition to disruptions, the President spoke out about Ordinances in particular, calling it a tool that should be used only in compelling circumstances.

Mukherjee shared a story about his mentor, late PM Indira Gandhi, on the importance of self-correction. After the Congresss poll defeat following the Emergency, Gandhi and Mukherjee were in London in 1978 and faced journalists, he said. The first question that was flung at her was, What have been your gains from the Emergency? Looking at the journalist squarely in the eye, Indira Gandhi replied, In those 21 months, we comprehensively managed to alienate all sections of Indian people. I learnt an early lesson of acknowledging my mistakes and rectifying them. Self-correction in such situations is always a better option than self-justification, Mukherjee said.

Earlier, vice president Hamid Ansari recalled how Mukherjee spoke about nurturing pluralism and diversity. He quoted Mukherjee to add that there is room for Argumentative Indian but not intolerant Indian. Ansari said these messages are important in our troubled times. The President too, spoke about the diversity of the country of 130 crore people who, he said, belonged to three major ethnic groups, practicing seven major religions and speaking 122 languages in daily lives.

Not a single part of this vast territory of 3.3 million square kilometers of landmass and islands is unrepresented in the Parliament. Each of the 788 voices of MPs is important, said Mukherjee. His comment assumes significance in the wake of the rise of smaller parties in Parliament.

Mukherjee spoke about his association with PV Narsimha Rao, remember former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee for his oration, Manmohan Singh for his calming presence, and recalled how LK Advani gave him mature advice and Sonia Gandhi was a passionate supporter of social legislations.

In the closing parts of his speech, he praised Prime Minister Modi and said: Ill carry with me fond memories of association with PM Narendra Modi and remember his warm behaviour towards me. He praised the PM for advice and co-operation at every step and added that the BJP leader is working with passion and energy, he is driving transformational changes.

It will be with a tinge of sadness and a rainbow of memories that I will be leaving this building today... I leave with a sense of fulfilment and happiness of having served the country, he said, before finishing his speech with Jai Hind.

Mukherjee will address the nation tomorrow before he demits office.

Link:
In farewell speech, President Pranab Mukherjee hails democracy, urges leaders to discuss and dissent - Hindustan Times

Rwandan president Paul Kagame greets supporters at the kickoff of his reelection campaign on July 14.

KIGALI, Rwanda

Next month one of the worlds most remarkable leaders, President Paul Kagame of Rwanda, will be overwhelmingly re-elected to a third seven-year term. Kagame runs an authoritarian state and does not tolerate serious opposition. That is not, however, the main reason he can count on such an overwhelming victory. He is being rewarded for turning his devastated country into a most unexpected success story.

Rwandans will re-elect Kagame because they want this progress to continue. They can also be sure that while he holds power, his strong hand will assure ethnic peace. That is no small matter in a country that still lives with the unfathomable trauma of fratricide that killed nearly a million people in 1994.

Advertisement

Ten years ago I wrote a book about this trauma and Kagames role in ending it. This is my first visit back since then. It comes as Kagame faces what may be his greatest challenge, one that few strongmen have mastered: transition to a more open society. His success or failure will resonate far beyond the verdant hills of this poor and landlocked country.

Rwanda is following the path blazed by countries like South Korea and Taiwan: development first, then democracy. Under Kagames leadership, it will probably continue to grow and become more prosperous. A stable political system, though, would be something entirely new here. Kagames place in history will depend not only on what he achieves, but what happens after he is gone.

Get This Week in Opinion in your inbox:

Globe Opinion's must-reads, delivered to you every Sunday.

From outside, the formula for political evolution seems obvious. Over the next seven years, Kagame could ease restrictions on free speech and allow political parties of every persuasion to grow and campaign openly. Then, in 2024, he would remain above the fray and accept whatever voters decide.

Decades after a genocide, the country is remarketing itself as the regions economic miracle.

This simple formula ignores Rwandas painful realities. Kagames restrictions on free speech mean that the countrys two traditional ethnic groups, Hutu and Tutsi, cannot preach hatred of each other. If democracy means an end to these restrictions, the result could be another explosion of murderous violence. This presents Kagame with an immensely complex set of choices. How can he arrange a peaceful transition to some new form of government without risking a disaster that would destroy everything he has built?

One certainty is that Kagame will not turn to advanced democracies for advice. He scorns the models that Western countries have sought to impose on African countries. Now he must find an alternative for Rwanda that allows debate, but also maintains social peace.

Advertisement

It is a daunting conundrum. Kagames success in raising his people from ruin has impressed all of Africa, as reflected in the recent election of Rwanda to head the 55-nation African Union in 2018. Shaping a transition to the next phase in Rwandan history may prove even more difficult.

The ethnic conflict that led to genocide in 1994 has faded from view. Whether it still festers in peoples hearts is less clear. The governments mantra, which all must adopt, is that every citizen is only Rwandan, not Hutu or Tutsi. Even using those words is taboo. Government leaders insist that repressing discussion of ethnic differences is the best way to reduce tension over time. Western human rights groups disagree.

Traveling through Rwanda is a revelation. Kigali, the capital, is the cleanest and most orderly city in Africa though Human Rights Watch says this is largely the result of a deliberate practice by the Rwanda National Police of rounding up undesirable people and arbitrarily detaining them. Good roads cover the country. Most people are poor, but the state assures that none truly suffer. More than 90 percent have health insurance and when there is an emergency in a remote area, supplies of blood or medicine can be delivered by drone within an hour. Nearly all children attend school, though the quality of education is often low. Electricity and running water reach more people every year. Tourism, which barely existed before Kagame took office, is now the countrys leading money-earner. Caring for the environment is a national imperative, reflected not only in the protection of majestic mountain gorillas but in less obvious ways, like Kagames ban on the plastic bags that plague much of Africa.

Direct criticism of Kagame or his development project is strongly discouraged sometimes violently, according to outside critics. Nonetheless it seems clear that many Rwandans are genuinely grateful to Kagame. The most obvious reason is that he has kept them from killing each other. He has also given them a sense of hope and pride.

When I traveled to other countries, people used to ask to see the blood on my hands, one man told me. Now when you say Rwanda, they think of security, hygiene and development,

Headlines over articles about Kagame often fit an established narrative: Savior or Dictator? Visionary or Tyrant? This formula misses the point. Kagames success in raising Rwanda from devastation is beyond question. Next months election may herald the beginning of the end of his era. If he can find a formula for political transition that is as successful as his anti-poverty formula has been, Rwanda will be a permanent model for the world.

Read more here:
Rwanda and the dangers of democracy - The Boston Globe - The Boston Globe

Dear Editor,

We thank the Ulster County Legislature for voting down the sanctuary county law.

The biggest problem with immigration is that we did not enforce the laws, resulting in people not knowing the rules, often disobeying the rules and then feeling entitled. They can also be manipulated and abused, which has happened in many cases.

The resiliency of a democratic form of government is based on its citizens and governmental agencies adhering to its laws. Without that philosophy, you no longer have a trued government of the people, by the people and for the people.

In order for a democracy and its people to thrive, we need a sense of who we are as a nation, including borders which define us and a strong cultural identity while embracing legal immigration. Without any of these components, you create a threshold for anarchy and the emergence of an oligarchic form of government in which we all lose. We become the pawns in the grab for power.

Advertisement

Thanks to the proven leadership of our county legislators and their adherence to the rule of law, Ulster County residents can be assured that our elected officials continue to promote a true democracy.

Michael and Joan Paccione

Woodstock, N.Y

Read the original post:
LETTER: Defeat of Ulster County 'sanctuary' is victory for democracy - The Daily Freeman

The United States is not a humble country. Despite widespread voter suppression tactics and a criminal justice system that imprisons a higher percentage of black people than South Africa did during apartheid, Americans have a disconcerting tendency to insist that they live in the greatest democracy in the world.

Not only is this claim to be the worlds best highly disputable, but the United States wouldnt classify as a democracy at allfrom the perspective of the ancient Greeks who invented the term.

Josiah Ober, professor of political science and classics at Stanford University and the author of several books on early democracy, argues that the ancient Greek conception of democracy is widely misunderstood today.

We tend to mistranslate it as majority rule. For the ancient Greeks, the word didnt mean majority rule, or majority tyranny. Instead it really means people have the capacity to rule themselves, he says. Thats the core idea of democracy, the capacity for self-governance, not power of one part of the population over another part of the population.

Ancient Greeks believed in widespread self-governance, and would likely be disturbed by the ignorance, apathy, and lack of political service today. Ober believes that they would describe the US as a pseudo-democracy or straight-up oligarchy.

It is not enough that to have elections to select the officials that then govern the United States; ancient Greeks would still view these disparate levels of powerwith one small group of people ruling over the massesas a form of oligarchy. And Ober says they would be particularly unimpressed with the current president of the United States.

Ancient Greeks had a definite idea of the characteristics of a tyrant: A Greek tyrant was a megalomaniac, extremely greedy for material possessions, a sexual aggressor, he sought to block out all of his enemies from any role in politics, says Ober. I think they would look at our current president and say, How doesnt this fit the view we have of what a tyrant is?

The notion that a democracy could remain a democracy while headed by a tyrant simply doesnt hold up, according to Ober. If you have a tyrant, and you accept it and say, Oh, thats too bad, we have a tyrant, then you dont have a democracy.

There are further problems that prevent the US political system from meeting ancient Greek democratic ideals. Rather than the relentless contemporary focus on elections, under a true self-governing democracy, ordinary citizens would take turns holding the majority of public offices.

Moreover, Ober says any strong democratic nation must first establish shared interests, such as a mutual desire for a basic level of national security or welfare.

And strong civic educationexploring the values of the nation, and the responsibilities that go with being a citizenis necessary to a functioning democracy. I think these skills can be learned. Its not like magic, says Ober.

I think the Ancient Greeks would say the US is a failed democracy, he says. Theyd say the inability of the wealthy and relatively non-wealthy to come to some kind of a common judgment about things like healthcare and public education and so on is an example of a failure.

Follow this link:
The inventors of democracy would define the US as an oligarchy run by a tyrant - Quartz