This week, the two expelled Democratic lawmakers in Tennessee were reinstated: a crucial step in preserving democratic representation and upholding the rights of the constituents who elected them. Meanwhile, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg filed a lawsuit against Rep. Jim Jordan in an effort to protect the integrity of the criminal case against former President Donald Trump. Finally, in another challenge to democratic norms, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas faces impeachment calls over his undisclosed luxury trips funded by a conservative megadonor.
Here’s what you need to know for the weekend:
Main Points for the Weekend:
1. Expelled Tennessee lawmakers reinstated, but questions about the abuse of power by state legislative supermajorities remain
In Tennessee, both expelled Black Democratic lawmakers, Justin Pearson and Justin Jones, have been reinstated after being ousted for participating in a nonviolent protest calling for stricter gun laws. Their expulsion intensified partisan rancor in the state and highlighted the racial and political tensions arising from GOP redistricting efforts that have diminished representation for Democrats and Black constituents. Despite the reinstatement of these lawmakers, tensions over racial injustice and the overreach of a legislative supermajority persist.
- Top point to make: The reinstatement of the expelled Democratic lawmakers in Tennessee is a positive step in restoring democratic representation and upholding the rights of the constituents who elected them. However, this reversal of injustice does not necessarily signify that the Republican supermajority has acknowledged or understood their abuse of power. Legislative chambers should serve as platforms for debating and shaping laws, representing the diverse voices and opinions that make up a healthy democracy. Turning them into echo chambers not only suppresses dissent but also undermines the very essence of democratic governance.
- If you read one thing: New York Times, 4/13/23: If Tennessee’s Legislature Looks Broken, It’s Not Alone: There are 99 legislators in the Tennessee House of Representatives, the body that voted on Thursday to expel two of its Democratic members for leading an anti-gun protest in the chamber. Sixty of them had no opponent in last November’s election. Of the remaining House races, almost none were competitive. Not a single seat flipped from one party to the other. “We’re just not in a normal political system,” said Kent Syler, a political science professor and expert on state politics at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro. “In a normal two-party system, if one party goes too far, usually the other party stops them. They put the brakes on.” In Tennessee, he said, “there’s nobody to put on the brakes.” And not just in Tennessee.
2.Manhattan DA sues Rep. Jim Jordan to prevent unconstitutional interference in Trump case amid racially-charged attacks
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has filed a lawsuit against Rep. Jim Jordan to prevent unconstitutional interference in the criminal case against former President Donald Trump. Bragg’s suit, which accuses Jordan of launching a brazen and unconstitutional attack on the prosecution, comes amid escalating tensions between the two parties and allegations of racist rhetoric. Jordan, a staunch Trump ally, has been leading efforts to influence the trial’s outcome and ensure Bragg faces political repercussions. The lawsuit aims to block Republicans’ demands for witness testimonies and document production related to Trump’s indictment on 34 counts of falsifying business records.
- Top point to make: No one, including former President Trump, should be considered above the law. Our democratic values are built on the principle of equal justice for all, regardless of one’s position or influence. It is entirely inappropriate for Congress to interfere in a state’s judicial system, whether through overt actions or intimidation tactics. When such interference occurs, it undermines the very foundations of our legal system and erodes public trust in our institutions. It is unfortunate that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has had to file a lawsuit to protect the integrity of his investigation and uphold the values of our democracy.
- If you read one thing: Politico, 4/11/23: Bragg sues House Republicans over ‘campaign of harassment’ amid Trump probe. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg sued House Republicans on Tuesday to prevent them from subpoenaing a former assistant DA who has criticized aspects of Bragg’s investigation into former President Donald Trump. In a 50-page lawsuit, Bragg slammed House GOP efforts to compel the testimony of his former lieutenant, Mark Pomerantz, as a “brazen and unconstitutional attack” and a “campaign of harassment in retaliation for the District Attorney’s investigation and prosecution of Mr. Trump.” Bragg is seeking a court order to bar Pomerantz from complying with the subpoena — and he also urged the court to issue a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order to prevent Congress from enforcing the subpoena.
3. Impeachment calls mount for Justice Thomas over undisclosed luxury trips funded by conservative megadonor
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas faces impeachment calls and demands for investigation following revelations that he failed to disclose luxury trips funded by conservative megadonor Harlan Crow. In a statement, Thomas maintained that he was advised that such gifts from close personal friends without business before the court did not need to be reported. However, Senate Democrats have urged Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to investigate these unreported gifts and announced a hearing to restore confidence in the Supreme Court’s ethical standards. Thomas has been accepting luxury trips from Crow for over two decades, raising concerns over the potential influence on the court’s independence and integrity.
- Top point to make: The integrity and independence of the Supreme Court are fundamental to the American political system. As the highest authority in the nation’s judiciary, it must remain free from partisan politics and influences that could compromise its impartiality. When justices accept lavish gifts or engage in questionable relationships with political figures or wealthy donors, public trust in the Court erodes. It is crucial that the justices maintain the highest ethical standards to ensure that Americans continue to have faith in the Court’s decisions and its role as the ultimate arbiter of the law. A compromised Supreme Court undermines the very foundations of our democracy, and it is the responsibility of every justice to safeguard the integrity and impartiality of this vital institution.
- If you read one thing: Boston Globe, 4/12/23: Supreme Court ethics comes under fire after Clarence Thomas disclosures: A recent report by ProPublica that Thomas had gone more than two decades without disclosing gifts of luxury trips nearly every year from a conservative Texas billionaire has highlighted the lack of strong and enforceable ethics rules at the Supreme Court. Thomas issued a rare statement in response that he had been advised years ago he did not have to report the trips on disclosures required by a 1978 law. But he said he now would do so in the future after new rules went into effect this year narrowing an exception for “personal hospitality.”
Expert Voices
Lilliana Mason, a political scientist at Johns Hopkins University who studies polarization: “The main impetus for politicization around things is what the leaders are saying about it[.]” The Atlantic
Harry Litman, former US attorney, re: Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric M. Davis who is presiding over Dominion Voting Systems’ lawsuit against Fox News: “Davis is not an intemperate judge, but he was really steamed at Fox today. The biggest points 1) he intends to appoint a special master to see if Fox intentionally failed to disclose evidence and 2) could instruct jury that Fox inappropriately blocked Dominion from getting evid.” Tweet
Joyce Vance, former US attorney, re: Fox News: “Concealing damaging info in discovery is good evidence of actual malice in a defamation case-that false statements were made with knowledge of their falsity & that defendant tried to withhold evidence showing that to prevent plaintiffs from proving it.” Tweet
Heather Cox Richardson, American historian: “The firing on Ft. Sumter was a key early blow in their attempt to replace American democracy with a new system, based on the idea that some men were better than others. It was no accident that on January 6, 2021, one of the men who attacked the United States Capitol carried a Confederate battle flag. Like his predecessors in the Old South, he rejected the outcome of a presidential election and sought to overturn it to create a nation based on white supremacy.” Letters from an American
