THE CASE FOR CONVERSATION

Something important was missing from my life. The absence felt like a lack of green salads or regular exercise. When I was introduced to a new book by Paula Marantz Cohen, professor of English at Drexel University, the deprivation became clear. Her thoughtful study: Talking Cure: An Essay on the Civilizing Power of Conversation makes the case for a frequent dose of stimulating conversation to stay healthy. She concludes that discussions in which the participants respectfully disagree are the most meaningful and emotionally satisfying.

I had forgotten that for eight years, one of the highlights of my week was meeting up with several lawyers for lunch each Thursday. We would discuss what was going on in Washington County and beyond. The venerable attorney Charles Keller, Esq. always seemed to adopt the conservative view of any topic. My close friend, Scot Curran, Esq. was a vocal liberal. Reed Day, Esq. would join in to support whichever position was losing the argument. I came to value the lively conversations that would dissect each issue. Unfortunately, our lunch gathering disbanded after several untimely deaths.

As I read Ms. Cohen’s essay on the importance of conversation, I found myself agreeing with her at every turn. Online culture has become the bane of meaningful conversation. We send short messages to our close friends that confirm our repetitive patterns of agreement. It is all “group think” with no room for dissent. We attack “the other” with no discussion of why we disagree. There are few attempts to offer meaningful support for our positions. The isolation that came with the pandemic was another nail in the coffin of conversation. The art of conversing was placed on life support.

Not so long ago, when the means of communication were limited, there was a pattern of regular engagement with others. In the typical American community of our ancestors, the major form of entertainment was conversing at social gatherings to discuss politics and local issues. As Park Burroughs, retired executive editor of the Observer-Reporter, pointed out in his Murder & Mayhem series, these local interactions did not always end peacefully. Thankfully, violence was the exception, and numerous views were expressed in lively conversations.

There are still methods to keep meaningful conversations alive in today’s social media environment. Ms. Cohen’s book discusses the art of the dinner party and how it can lead to an evening of good conversation. This observation took me back to the 1980s and my first marriage. For eleven years, we were members of a dinner club with four other couples that met every other month. The host couple would invite a guest couple for the members to meet. One of our members kept a scrapbook of who attended each gathering and what we discussed.

The conversation was always stimulating, punctuated by polite disagreements. I learned that an attorney processed information differently from an English teacher and that an accountant would bring up points an engineer would explore in other directions. 

In my present marriage, we traditionally hosted a holiday dinner in December with five other couples who varied from year to year. Over time, this gathering became a family affair that offered fewer opportunities for challenging conversations. The pandemic put a stop to this event, which we now hope to reintroduce.

Ms. Cohen makes the following observation about conversations and why we never know what we might be missing. “One can never tell how people will get along. I know a number of people whom I should logically not like conversing with whom I nonetheless find invigorating and several who seem perfect on paper whom I avoid like the plague.” She praises the French essayist Michel de Montaigne's observation, “The most fruitful and natural exercise of the mind, in my opinion, is conversation. I find the use of it sweeter than any other action in life.”

For Cohen, the mental health advantages of good conversation are clear, “We converse to forget our existential aloneness, to get out of our own heads and replenish our sense of connectedness to others.” Conversation is a social activity. The participants must be willing to show respect for each other to make it work.

In education, the Harkness teaching method offers a unique conversational approach to learning, adopted by many private boarding schools. Instead of lectures, students are seated in a large, oval configuration to discuss ideas in an open-minded environment. Free thought and originality of the individual through conversation replace traditional lesson plans.

With the Harkness method, disagreements on a point under discussion build confidence and encourage positive attitudes to learning. The teacher becomes a partner in the learning process, guiding students to independently discover meaning within the subject area. The Harkness method is the direct opposite of isolated viral learning forced upon students during the pandemic.

In thinking about this subject, I have decided that my op-ed contributions to this newspaper have become, in part, an exercise to replace conversation with writing. After all, the purpose of an op-ed is to discuss and provide arguments on issues of relevance to the readers of the newspaper.

Each week, I hope that a reader will decide to agree or disagree with my position in a letter to the editor. Sadly, most readers who have thoughtful views to share do not respond. A social media post to a friend requires much less effort.

 

 

 

THE POLITICIZATION OF FREE SPEECH

Many Americans who invoke free speech, often in favor or against a political position, have little idea of what free speech entails. This commentary will examine how free speech has evolved through a series of groundbreaking court opinions. It will also consider how free speech is misapplied in today's political and cultural wars.

The framers of our Constitution viewed free speech as a basic right, guaranteed in the First Amendment.  Recently, this long-standing cornerstone of our democracy has shifted from something to be protected to a weaponized club with which to bash political opponents.

The Free Speech clause in the First Amendment prohibits the government from “abridging the freedom of speech” but does not define what that freedom entails. Interpretation has largely been left to the courts. Over the years, vocal groups within the country have utilized free speech to abolish slavery, gain women’s suffrage and civil rights, expose government lies, and protect the media. The American Civil Liberties Union, a vigilant watchdog of free speech, has stated, “Protecting free speech means protecting a free press, the democratic process, and diversity of thought.”

What follows is a summary of free speech rulings under our evolving law as outlined by the organization Speechfirst.org.

In 1801, President Thomas Jefferson allowed the Sedition Act and Alien Friends Act to expire because they violated the First Amendment. In 1919, the Supreme Court announced the famous “clear and present danger” test to determine when a state could constitutionally limit an individual’s free speech rights under the First Amendment.  

In 1942, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld an arrest, ruling that “fighting” words, those that inherently cause harm or are likely to create an immediate disturbance, are not protected under the First Amendment.  In 1943, the court established that students could not be punished for refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance or to salute the American flag. Justice Felix Frankfurter, in 1951, proposed a “balancing test” to weigh the gravity of “evil” against the justification of infringing upon free speech in order to avoid danger.

The Supreme Court, in 1951, defended the principle of academic freedom by holding it is necessary for academics to teach, research, and study without government or administrative interference. In 1958, the Supreme Court acknowledged that First Amendment protections were extended to the LGBT community. Historically, governments had harassed this community by labeling its conduct “obscene” and its gatherings as “riots.”

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled in 1964 that Lenny Bruce’s comedy routine was social commentary and not obscenity. His legal victory helped inspire future comedians to challenge social mores and boundaries. Also, in 1964, the Supreme Court established an “actual malice” principle in libel law – requiring a higher standard to prove libel, protect criticism and further strengthen free speech rights.

In 1969, the court threw out the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member and established that speech merely advocating violence is protected unless the speech is likely to incite “imminent lawless action.” In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that college campuses (wearing black armbands) are not exempt from the First Amendment and that those protections apply at the same level as in the community at large. In 1990, the Supreme Court found the Texas flag desecration law (and those of 47 other states) to be unconstitutional, ruling that flag burning constitutes “symbolic speech” and is protected by the First Amendment.

The definition of free speech has regularly been updated along with the country’s changing views. Today, First Amendment protections ensure that all viewpoints can be freely communicated without fear of retribution.  It is therefore troubling and irresponsible for political actors to inaccurately invoke free speech or to improperly regulate speech without considering the harm to our democracy.

First, consider the political pundits and Republican members of Congress who claim that the former president cannot be indicted on conspiracy charges against the American people because he was “exercising his right to free speech.” The First Amendment guarantees that Trump and his supporters may manufacture and repeat untrue election fraud claims wherever and whenever they please. However, taking action to form a criminal conspiracy to interfere with the transfer of presidential power is not protected speech.

Next, consider banning books from libraries and public schools. In 2022, there were 1,269 efforts to censor books and other library resources. A group called Moms for Liberty has been active in banning books with LGBT content and those that present a balanced historical perspective on slavery. When federal judges ordered books returned, some communities closed their libraries. Recently, a judge blocked Arkansas from enforcing a law against librarians that would restrict reading material for minors.

Third, in the Senate, there is the conservative Lindsey Graham and progressive Elizabeth Warren’s attempt to form something called the Digital Consumer Protection Commission. Presumably, it would regulate matters like data privacy, distribution of false information, and competition. Many free speech advocates believe such a commission would destroy the open internet with partisan bureaucrats in charge of policing technology.

Free speech is one of the more complex aspects of a very messy democratic system.  Political censorship must not silence topics offensive to some Americans but important to others. Our guiding light should be the famous words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. who wrote, “The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate.”

 

 

 

 

BUCKLE UP FOR A WILD RIDE

The August doldrums will soon disappear and politics in Washington County will reclaim center stage. Starting with the county fair, the focus will be on the critical two months leading up to the local November election for county offices. This will be followed by a 2024 presidential election campaign that promises to place Pennsylvania in the middle of a political maelstrom unlike any other in the history of American politics.

While much of the nation dozes through 2023, Washington County faces a crossroads in county government. Republican Diana Irey Vaughan has decided to step down from her Commissioner’s chair after 28 years of service. The dynamics of decision-making at the Commissioner’s meetings will inevitably change.

If the Democratic team of Larry Maggi and Cecil Township Supervisor Cindy Fisher pull off a November victory, there will likely be a return to an administration familiar to voters, from recent decades of Democratic rule. A Maggi-Fisher majority would be characterized by no tax increases, moderate spending on essential needs, and little drama in the Commissioners’ office. Civil servants in county government, who have been preparing resumes in anticipation of their termination, would breathe a sigh of relief.

A Republican victory in the Commissioners’ race comes with greater uncertainty. Neither Nick Sherman nor Electra Janis has disclosed plans for restructuring the county government. However, over the past four years, Sherman was often displeased with the reasonable path taken by his fellow Republican Commissioner, Ms. Irey Vaughan. He was sympathetic to the positions of radical pro-Trump election deniers. Accordingly, no one is sure what action a Republican administration would take to placate these extremists.

In sizing up the November Commissioner’s race, there are several unknowns involving how residents will vote. First, could the trend from four years ago, when Republicans were elected to county offices, be reversed? Under this theory, the theft of funds by a Democrat in the Clerk of Courts Office cost Democratic candidates many votes. Second, does the Republican advantage in voter registration preclude any opportunity for a Democratic victory? Third, will the infighting throughout the Washington County Republican Party cost them the Commissioners race? Fourth, if the Maggi-Fisher team wins the top of the ticket, will the Row Office officials also be replaced with Democrats?  

Following this November’s results, we will have little opportunity to escape politics before the nation focuses on Pennsylvania and the presidential election of 2024. In addition, because of the razor-thin Democratic majority in the Senate, Republicans have identified incumbent Democrat Bob Casey as one of their top targets in 2024, bringing national attention to the contest.

While urban dwellers trend toward voting Democratic and rural residents are overwhelmingly Republican, the “swing” suburbs now determine national elections. Thus, the Presidential candidates must focus on the suburban voters in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Arizona, and Georgia. Because the area surrounding Pittsburgh is considered suburban, our communities will garner unprecedented political advertising and campaign visits.  

Although we are over a year from the presidential election, President Biden recently appeared in Philadelphia and his wife in Pittsburgh to take credit for low unemployment and the infrastructure bill. Former President Trump recently spoke at an early campaign rally in Erie.

The battle to determine our next President is shaping up to be a rerun of 2020. The latest polling gives former President Trump a rating of over 50% among Republicans compared to 16% for his closest challenger, Ron DeSantis. President Biden has no serious Democratic opposition. No viable third-party candidate has yet appeared.

The last presidential campaign was a nasty affair. The post-election criminal conspiracy by Trump and his allies to overturn the Biden victory was unprecedented in American history. The 2024 campaign will be much worse. We are faced with a confrontation of victimhood and untruth vs. the rule of law.

When Trump receives the nomination of his party next July, he will be out on bail in two federal and two state indictments. His “Save America” PAC spent over $40 million on criminal legal fees so far in 2023. The New York felony trial involving Stormy Daniels's hush money should be completed and on appeal. The federal trial in Florida on the classified documents charges is likely to be completed and the verdict on appeal. The other two indictments involving election conspiracies should also be scheduled for trial by July.

Trump will play off these criminal trials to raise money and to energize his “always Trump” supporters. His campaign strategy to regain the presidency will be to tear down the American legal system along with federal law enforcement and to undermine support for Ukraine. If elected, Trump has made it clear he plans to seek revenge against those who brought charges against him. If Trump loses, there will be another claim of election fraud, and he will send his furious hoard of election deniers back into the fray.

On the Democratic side of the equation, President Biden will be facing his own challenges. Congressional Republicans will use any specious claim of impropriety to bring impeachment proceedings against him. This will further muddy the election waters. Any uncertainty with the economy will loom large.

A continuous stream of national political commercials will start to run locally this November and accelerate during 2024. A vote from our area will be among the most sought-after in the country on Election Day.

 

  

HOW FOMO IMPACTS OUR BEHAVIOR

The fear of missing out (FOMO) is an emotional response to the belief that other people are living better, more satisfying lives or that important opportunities are being missed. The noun was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2013 and is now widely accepted.  

FOMO is not simply a byproduct of modern culture. According to the explanation of Adam and Eve in Genesis, the serpent explained to Eve, “…when you eat from it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” This biblical fear of missing out sent humankind out of the Garden of Eden into a very different environment.

Many thinkers throughout history have recognized FOMO as an influence on human behavior. The French philosopher Montesquieu addressed the problem when he opined, “If one only wished to be happy, this could be easily accomplished; but we wish to be happier than other people and this is always difficult, for we believe others to be happier than they are.” Skip forward to Erica Jong who weighed in with, “Jealousy is all the fun you think they had.” Lastly, the financial guru, Naved Abdali reasoned that, “Fear of missing out is more powerful than fear of losing what you already have.”

FOMO was first recognized as a powerful, modern, psychological force in the field of advertising. Researchers in marketing discovered that strategies to intensify FOMO dramatically increased sales. Examples include AT&T’s “Don’t be Left Behind” campaign to convince mobile phone users to join their network and Duracell’s “Stay in Charge” advertising that persuaded users to use their batteries or suffer unnecessary consequences. FOMO advertising has always been used to increase sales of “sin” products like tobacco, alcohol, and gambling. New automobile, movie, book, and music releases tap into FOMO, as do the clothing companies, particularly athletic wear and sneakers.

With the advent of social media, FOMO has taken on a larger role in our lives. Studies have determined that those who utilize Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter become addicted to constantly checking their devices to avoid missing out. A 2021 poll concluded that 51% of social media users logged in more frequently than they did two years previously, often first thing in the morning and before falling asleep.

Seven out of ten millennials experience social media-driven FOMO, the most of any age group. Moreover, millennials are more likely to intentionally create FOMO among their peers by posting suggestive, over-the-top information about their activities. Child psychologists are concerned that social media FOMO is adversely affecting the mental health of impressionable teenagers.

In 2023, FOMO has gone ballistic in many aspects of our lives. Social scientists believe that the pandemic was a significant cause. First, the months of being cloistered at home dramatically increased the number of those who became addicted to social media platforms. Second, after the pandemic wound down, there was a rush to experience all that had been left undone during the health crisis. FOMO was exaggerated by 24/7 social media posts that reminded us what we had missed. Below I will highlight several examples that have occurred this year.

Taylor Swift. No illustration of FOMO in 2023 could compete with singer Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour, her first following the pandemic. Over 2.4 million tickets were sold on the first day, shattering the previous record. Many eager fans were denied tickets and were overcome with FOMO.

The Eras Tour elevated the money-making potential of the sold-out concerts by revitalizing local hotels, businesses, and restaurants. The concert venues attracted large crowds of non-ticket holders just to purchase Taylor Swift merchandise and listen to the music from a distance. Each local concert has dominated the national social media causing additional FOMO. US sales estimates put Swift's earnings at an average of $ 13.6 million a show. In the secondary market, the parents of young girls were paying over $2 thousand a ticket to make sure their daughters would not experience FOMO.  

Travel. Following the pandemic travel has been all about making up for lost time to visit family and to plan bucket list experiences made desirable in social media. Trips to celebrate milestones that occurred during the shutdown are also popular. In recent polling, very few travelers indicated that inflation, gas prices, or the higher cost of plane tickets would interfere with their plans to catch up on missed opportunities. Not even large crowds at popular destinations or inconvenient flight disruptions have deterred those who fear missing out.

The Stock Market. FOMO has been a major factor in explaining the meteoric rise in the 2023 stock market. Many were predicting a down year in January due to inflation and recession fears. Out of nowhere, artificial intelligence began dominating the news leading to a handful of stocks doubling in value. The buying spree soon spread to other areas. The rapid rise escalated buyer momentum fed by investor fear of missing out.

The stock market averages are now well above where many financial advisors feel comfortable. Nonetheless, new money continues to flow into the market. Because interest rates, inflation, and recession remain major concerns, things could end badly if the market suddenly retreats.

Psychologists point to one simple cure for FOMO, whether it involves social media, leisure time, or investing. Have a plan and stick to it. You will then be happier and less influenced by decisions others are making in their lives.

 

 

 

 

 

THE WAR AND ENDGAME IN UKRAINE

 

“War is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will.”   Carl von Clausewitz

On 24 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. The attack was an unexpected escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War, which began in 2014 when Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula. The two combatants have each suffered more than 100,000 casualties resulting in tens of thousands of deaths on both sides.  Russian missiles have caused mass civilian loss of life. Ukrainian soldiers report frequent Russian atrocities.

Ukraine’s economy shrank by roughly 30 percent in 2022, and more than 30 percent of its population has been displaced.  Its infrastructure has been decimated with 40 percent of its electricity-generating capacity wiped out.

This commentary will discuss two topics that have occupied my thoughts since the conflict began. How was this brutal conflict possible after the horrors of two European world wars and now with nuclear weapons everywhere on the European continent?  Second, what is the endgame if it is in our nation’s interest to fund the war effort militarily and support the Ukrainians diplomatically? 

At the end of 2021, western intelligence services were certain of two things. First, Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, had met his major objectives by occupying Crimea, and there was little to be gained by Putin starting a broader conflict. Second, if Russia did invade Ukraine, it would quickly win the war. Instead, the conflict in Ukraine has plunged Europe into the largest, longest land war since WWII. The violence has affected much of the world both economically and politically.

An excellent authority in understanding why nations engage in war is Margaret MacMillan’s comprehensive study: War: How Conflict Shaped Us, Random House (October 6, 2020.) She investigates the subject’s terror and fascination, as well as its scope and persistence. Ms. MacMillan reminds us “The instinct to fight may be innate in human nature, but war—organized violence—comes with organized society. War has shaped humanity’s history, its social and political institutions, its values, and ideas. Our very language, our public spaces, our private memories, and some of our greatest cultural treasures reflect the glory and the misery of war. War is an uncomfortable and challenging subject not least because it brings out both the vilest and the noblest aspects of humanity.” Certainly, Russia has earned the title of vile aggressor and Ukraine of noble defender.

To comprehend the war in Ukraine, one must attempt to penetrate the mind of Vladimir Putin. While no one is sure what motivates him, Putin's speeches over the last decade cast him as the strong leader who could reclaim Russia’s lost greatness. He believes the breakup of the Soviet Union’s empire was a mistake.  Putin often describes himself as sharing the ambitions of 18th-century Russian tsar, Peter the Great. He seeks to portray Russia as the defender of all who challenge the West and its democratic system of government.

Under this view, Putin started the war with Ukraine as a proxy conflict with the West, to demonstrate his strength. After 17 months of fighting, the conflict has taken on a very different meaning for Putin, his survival. Many believe that if he loses the war, his regime will end.

What business does the United States have in spending billions and depleting its military stockpiles for a regional conflict in Eastern Europe? When the war began, there was an outpouring of emotional support for the Ukrainian people defending their homeland. As the war drags on, doubts begin to appear, and support could be waning. Recently, far-right Republicans sought to use a Congressional Defense Bill to defund the Ukrainian War conflict.   

In truth, most members of Congress and a majority of the American people continue to support the war effort. The Ukraine conflict is not Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. No American blood is being shed for an unwinnable cause. The war has been a strategic windfall for NATO and the United States. Russia has been badly damaged and isolated. With the addition of Finland and Sweden, NATO now borders the entire Baltic Sea. Germany is finally pulling its weight militarily and is no longer dependent on Russian oil.

For those who believe that American foreign policy should support a ceasefire to stop the bloodshed, knowledgeable experts disagree. A senior analyst on Russia, Mason Clark, wrote for Time Magazine: “Any Russian invasion of Ukraine, now or in the future, will inevitably harm Europe, endanger NATO, and entail the risk of a conventional or nuclear escalation. The U.S. must not kick the problem down the road by accepting a temporary ceasefire that would stop the current fighting while raising the risks of a renewed Russian invasion. The U.S. should instead enable Ukraine to comprehensively defeat the current Russian invasion.”

A pause in the war would simply permit the Russian military to reload its arsenal and give it time to go on a total war footing to conscript and train a larger army. Only a just settlement with security guarantees makes sense for the Western alliance.

More than anyone, the Ukrainians themselves who are absorbing the killing of its citizens and the destruction of its infrastructure, understand the endgame. For them, the conclusion of the war involves reclaiming their territory and convincing Russia not to try a later invasion. They are fighting and dying to avoid leaving this war to their children. Ukraine deserves our continued support.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT HAS TRANSFORMED AMERICA

The Conservative Supreme Court has been on my radar for some time. A recent commentary on the subject by Dave Ball, published in this paper on July 9, 2023, helped to solidify my thoughts. This rebuttal of Mr. Ball will also serve as an overview of the consequential effects of Chief Justice John Roberts’s Conservative Supreme Court on American society.

First, Mr. Ball argues that our highest court “follows the law” and that those “liberals” that disagree with its opinions are “acting like children” because the public policy that flows from the decisions is “not what they wish for.”  His conclusion ignores the fact that many well-respected constitutional scholars argue that the Supreme Court majority often did not follow established precedents or legal theories in deciding recent cases.

Second, our founders created the Supreme Court because Constitutional law is open to numerous interpretations. To characterize Supreme Court controversies, as does Mr. Ball, as a debate between a higher standard of “the law” on the one hand and petty “policy” favorable to an actor’s political views on the other is an argument with little meaning.

Every monumental Supreme Court decision has winners and losers on different sides of the political spectrum. The winners, whether from the left or right, always claim good law and improved policy.  Conversely, the losers claim bad law and worse policy. As an example, the positions of both pro-choice and pro-life advocates remain widely held, sincere, and politically important regardless of the status of the constitutional law on abortion.

Third, I will rebut Mr. Ball’s support for two recent Supreme Court decisions and his attack on court watchers who disagree. In the opinion striking down affirmative action programs in college admissions, (Fair Admissions v. Harvard College) the dissent argues that the decision improperly rolls back decades of precedent and progress on diversity. Constitutional scholars also criticize the conservative majority for adopting “a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle.”

Those conservatives praising the new decision on affirmative action should remember that not long ago, one of their own, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor disagreed. She wrote, “Student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions.”

Mr. Ball also attacks President Biden for his “vote-buying plan” to cancel up to $400 billion in student loans to benefit as many as 43 million Americans. In fact, this executive action was taken to fulfill a campaign pledge made by Biden to those with student loans during the 2020 election campaign. The President reasoned that if corporations and businesses across the nation could receive over $760 billion in forgiveness loans during the pandemic, students deserved similar forgiveness of their tuition debt.

The conservative Supreme Court ruled that Biden overstepped his authority and vacated the executive order on student loans (Biden v. Nebraska.) There were cogent arguments on both sides of the issue, and no one was shocked by this decision. However, for Mr. Ball to accuse Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan of showing no legal skill in writing her dissent is ridiculous.

Even worse was Ball’s accusation that any attempt by the President to continue to seek a solution to the student debt crisis would be a “conspiracy to defraud the United States.” Ironically, such a solution was announced last week when Biden’s administration implemented a series of fixes to the student loan repayment system that is expected to help more than 800,000 people with student debt.

In order to understand how the era of Chief Justice John Roberts has transformed America, one must step back for a broader view. Eighteen years ago, the Roberts era began. His goals were to overturn Roe v. Wade, reinterpret the Second Amendment to make private gun ownership a constitutional right, eliminate race-based affirmative action, elevate the place of religion in the public square, and curb federal agencies’ regulatory power. Every objective was achieved by the end of the Supreme Court’s most recent term on June 30.

What can be done to counter this trend and return the Supreme Court to a more moderate center? Various ideas have been proposed starting with expanding the court. The Supreme Court has had as few as five seats and as many as ten. However, if Democrats seek to increase the number of liberal Justices by voting to increase appointments, Republicans could retaliate with the same tactic. 

Congress could create an 18-year term limit for new appointments.  Each President would eventually appoint two Justices during a four-year administration.  Congress could mandate an independent bipartisan commission to nominate fair-minded candidates for the Supreme Court.  Any reform would require action from a deeply divided Congress.

The conservative members of the court are young and will be deciding controversial appeals for decades. Powerful conservative movements will continue to seek cases with favorable fact patterns to present to the activist majority. The goal is to further ingrain white, Christian orthodoxy into constitutional law. For progressives and many moderate court watchers, this conclusion is as unavoidable as it is frightening. 

Concerned citizens do not need Dave Ball or others to rub salt in their wounds by accusing them of acting immaturely when they disagree with the decisions of the conservative court. The mission is now to develop legal “workarounds”, as Biden took last week on student debt, to sidestep the latest rulings. Our democratic constitutional republic expects nothing less.

 

 

TWO MUSICAL SUPERSTARS LIGHT UP PITTSBURGH

This work of fiction is based on Taylor Swift and the Pittsburgh Symphony

Megan was not happy. In fact, she was very angry at her parents and most of the world.  It was Sunday morning on a beautiful June day. On the previous Friday and Saturday evenings, Taylor Swift had come to town. The Mayor proudly renamed Pittsburgh “Swiftsburg.”

Megan idolized Taylor Swift. She streamed all of Swift’s songs onto her phone and knew many of her lyrics by heart. However, Megan believed she had missed the biggest event of her young life because her parents refused to let her participate in “Swiftmania.”

A few of Megan’s friends were lucky enough to score precious tickets for one of the two Taylor Swift mega-concerts at the Steeler’s stadium. Other friends had convinced their parents to shell out thousands of dollars to purchase tickets on the secondary market. Less fortunate friends took the subway to the stadium, hung out with other “Swifties”, purchased “merch”, and listened to Taylor perform from the parking lot. Since Megan was not yet 16, her parents did not allow her to go to the stadium unchaperoned. Her reaction was to spend the weekend cloistered in her locked bedroom, refusing meals and any adult interaction.

By Sunday morning, Megan was hungry and needed a shower. She decided the silent treatment could continue outside her bedroom. As she headed for the kitchen, Megan’s brother reminded her that it was Father’s Day. She recalled that her grandmother had purchased two additional tickets for Megan and her father to attend the final Pittsburgh Symphony concert of the year. “Great,” thought Megan. “My concert experience to relive with my friends takes place in a dusty old building surrounded by dusty old people with walkers.” Nonetheless, Megan decided to accompany her grandmother to the performance because “Nana” always chose a fantastic location for Sunday Brunch.

When the three symphony goers arrived at Heinz Hall, Megan helped her grandmother into the building and continued to ignore her father. Megan thought that the tall-distinguished Black usher who welcomed them was beyond cool. She noticed a number of well-dressed young women her age being escorted into the building by their fathers in honor of the special day.

Heinz Hall was all aglow, reminding Megan of a European palace. Her grandmother’s season tickets were front and center in the fourth row. As they took their seats, many adults acknowledged Megan and told her how elegant and grown-up she looked. It was impossible for Megan not to smile and thank her grandmother’s symphony friends for their kind words.

As the orchestra filtered in and took their seats, Megan was surprised by the youthful appearance and diversity of the players. Her grandmother had proudly explained the many awards and honors bestowed on the Pittsburgh Symphony. Megan was getting excited to hear how so many musicians could play together as one

The orchestra opened with “Roman Festivals” by the composer Respighi. Megan was surrounded by the most magnificent sound she had ever heard. Maestro Manfred Honeck led each instrument into its individual moment of grandeur before the unifying harmony of the orchestra flooded the Hall.

Nothing could have prepared Megan for what happened during the following soloist presentation. A tall thin twenty-year-old Spanish violinist, Maria Duenas, took the stage in a bright red dress, exuding all the confidence of a musician twice her age. If the visual image was not enough her violin sprang into action, beginning her interpretation of the flamboyant Selections for Violin and Orchestra, Opus 21, by Edouard Lalo.

An awe-struck New York Times reviewer once described Ms. Duenas at work as “slashing at the violin so furiously she could have drawn blood from the strings.” No one in attendance on Sunday would disagree. Her performance was exemplary, and her emotional output was over the moon. Megan was so overwhelmed that she forgot she was angry with her father and grabbed his hand. She knew that she had heard a true musical “rock star” that could hold her own with Taylor Swift.

When Ms. Duenas was done, the normally composed Heinz Hall audience gave her three rousing standing ovations. The patrons were honored with a short, soft encore to demonstrate her versatility. Next came intermission and the audience headed for the restrooms and the beautiful outdoor Heinz Hall waterfall.

Under a tree in the enclosed outdoor park, Grandmother beckoned to Megan and her father.  She held an envelope and a book and explained their purpose to Megan. “For your sweet-16th birthday, I was going to purchase two tickets for you and your father to the Taylor Swift concert. Instead, I bought these.” Inside the envelope were two tickets to Spain and Italy with hotel reservations and expense money. “After today’s performance, I thought father and daughter should visit the countries that inspired the music.”

Next, Megan’s grandmother explained the book. “Your first stop is Barcelona. This novel, The Shadow of the Wind, by Carlos Ruiz Zafon, will unfold the city before your imagination.”

Megan hugged her grandmother and her father. The second half of the concert with stirring Roman music was not as well remembered as the first. She could not wait to get home and text her friends to tell them about her newfound musical love and her upcoming adventure.  Megan began reading the Spanish novel that very evening.