Supreme Court ignores ‘checks and balances’; Congress should rein it in

Gordon L. Weil

The Supreme Court rules the federal government.

When it comes to judges, the checks and balances that are supposed to restrain each of the three branches of the government don’t work.   The Supreme Court composed of nine, unelected justices holding their positions for life have assumed virtually unlimited power.

When they seek Senate confirmation, judicial nominees declare they have no personal agenda but pledge to simply apply the law.  They give the impression that the law is clear and all they must do is measure each case against its standards.  They will set aside their personal leanings for the cold analysis they must make.

Although everybody knows their political philosophy and that they hold views consistent with those of the president who appointed them, they refuse to answer questions about how they see issues on the grounds that revealing their beliefs might undermine their proclaimed objectivity if they get a case to decide. That lets them get away with what everybody knows is pure fiction.

Just ask Sen. Susan Collins who wanted to learn if nominee Brett Kavanaugh accepted the Court’s precedent when it decided abortion was a constitutional right.  Of course, he wouldn’t simply tell her, so she was left to try to decode his veiled message.  She concluded he respected the precedent.  It turned out he didn’t.

Shouldn’t Congress cut out the sham and insist on real answers as a condition of confirmation?

How about Chief Justice John Roberts when he ruled for the Court that African-Americans no longer needed federal assurance of their voting rights and that states could be counted on to treat them fairly. True, he recognized that the section of the Voting Rights Act he was nullifying was a major reason they had gained voting access.  But enough was enough.

Within minutes of that decision, four states that had been under federal supervision began making it more difficult for Blacks to vote.  And that process has continued ever since. His Court majority was composed of Republican appointees; the states limiting access for African-Americans are under Republican control.

The arrogance inherent in an unchecked judiciary goes on. A lone district court judge in Amarillo, Texas decided that the Food and Drug Administration erred 22 years ago in approving an abortion drug.  He substituted his non-expert judgment for the work of many scientists over many years.  Using a process allowed by the highest court, he applied his ruling to the entire country.  It was appealed.

What’s the reasonable length of a congressional recess?  It might seem that Congress could decide that.  Instead, the Court has ruled it must be at least ten days to qualify as the recess period mentioned in the Constitution.

These decisions are obviously not simply a matter of determining what the law is, despite what the nominees say they will do.  This is legislation.

The justices rather than the Constitution have become “the supreme law of the land.”  They act to make sure that the popularly elected branches, Congress and the president, don’t get carried away exercising the people’s will.

The Framers of the Constitution may have been creating an innovative new democracy, but they didn’t fully trust average people.  The Court, ignoring over 230 years of change, would keep it that way.  But the elected branches and their voters have evolved, and the Court should concede the development of democracy and back off of its paternalism.

The justices need to be accountable.  If the chair of the Federal Reserve can be required to testify before Congress about the Fed’s actions and plans, the Chief Justice should have to explain to elected officials the decisions made by the Court.  The heads of executive departments testify and even the president shows up once a year.

There’s also the matter of personal accountability.  Every member of Congress faces ethics review and financial reporting.  They and the presidents face voters and the media.  Representatives and senators are censured and expelled.  Justices do none of that.

Supreme Court justices make financial reports, but Justice Clarence Thomas has failed repeatedly to do that.  No one can make him report accurately or completely. One justice resigned for taking gifts far less significant than those Thomas accepted. 

The justices have made themselves into untouchable demigods, and Congress has meekly agreed.

In 1803, the Court made itself the last word in the federal government.  An independent judiciary is an essential element of the three-part system that can only work if each branch observes the checks and balances.  Right now, the Court controls many checks and operates without balances.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to make “exceptions” to the Supreme Court’s powers and to set “regulations” for it.  It’s time for Congress to ensure that the Court operates within the constitutional system, but does not own it. 

One election reveals keys to Democratic recovery

 

Gordon L. Weil

Things are not going well for the Democrats.

GOP states unravel their policies, from abortion to education. Their voters are blocked. Courts legislate away their core policies. Republicans exploit apparent deadlock to threaten or even reverse a system that had mistakenly been thought to be permanent. The Democrats are on their back foot, as the saying goes.

A single recent election – for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court – may have given them the formula for a comeback.

Until the Civil War, American political life reflected an almost simple faith in individual freedom, especially for the dominant group in the nation. It allowed only a limited role for government. Today, this is the philosophy of Republicans who control states from Florida to Wisconsin.

The Great Depression and World War II produced an alternative, offering a larger government to serve common interests as well as protecting individual rights. The public interest should no longer be dominated by a single group – white men. As Democrats, they once governed from Florida to Wisconsin.

American politics settled into a contest between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats. The Democrats and their policies from Social Security to civil rights gained broad popular support.

Their gains sent a signal to Republicans that holding onto power depended on uniting against a growing government. Concerned about becoming a permanent minority, thanks in part to the wide availability of government benefits, they reacted strongly. In their war for political survival and renewed control, virtually anything goes.

Their conservative platform would restore much of the pre-Civil War system. Facing a growing non-white, non-male electorate, they try to change the rules to suppress voting by these groups. Financed by super-wealthy, anti-regulation economic conservatives, they seek to attract social conservatives, who oppose increased government tolerance of diversity.

The conservatives have achieved levels of discipline and finance allowing them to become the apparent political equal of the liberals. While that balance is said to cause stalemate, it is enough to allow the conservatives the ability to block change and repeal past measures. They work to make their gains permanent.

In pursuing their agenda, the Democratic Party’s liberals have seemingly believed that virtue is its own reward. By helping more people, they have assumed they will win elections. But many people are left to understand for themselves the value they derive from government action. They may face Republican efforts to suppress their participation.

All of this happened in recent years under a Republican governor and Republican legislature in Wisconsin. They rolled back progressive legislation and redistricted the state. Now, it is estimated that under the state’s extreme gerrymandering, the Democrats would have to gain the support of about 60 percent of the voters to regain a legislative majority.

A Republican member of the state elections board boasted that the number of Milwaukee voters in 2022 had been sharply cut “with the major reduction happening in the overwhelming Black and Hispanic areas.” That reduced turnout was greater than the narrow statewide reelection margin of a GOP U.S. Senator over a Black Democrat.

Efforts by Democrats to draw state legislative districts to prevent gerrymandering on the basis of race prevailed in the state Supreme Court, when a conservative judge broke ranks. But the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the GOP, reflecting its reluctance to reject any gerrymandering unless there is a formally declared intent to discriminate.

The conservatives are ready to exploit fully any advantage they gain and see no benefit in compromise. Liberals have a weak response. But the recent election for the Wisconsin Supreme Court seat reflects a better understanding of the challenges and their possible solutions. It could be the key to Democratic recovery.

This was the most expensive state judicial election ever in the U.S. Democrats are now able to mobilize money like the GOP. In American politics, money matters and more money matters more.

Backed by the Democrats, the judicial candidate was a woman, yielding an all-female liberal court majority. Instead of playing coy like most judicial candidates, she clearly announced her positions on key issues. She was as forthright on abortion rights as GOP-backed candidates have been.

Democrats stressed the importance of this victory, given the possibility of voting challenges after the 2024 presidential election. It was a statewide race, where a Democratic majority could produce a positive result that could not yet be achieved in gerrymandered legislative races. They got out their vote, and she received a stunning 55.5 percent.

The Democrats need to start winning by big margins. All across the country, they can learn from Wisconsin. Get off the defensive. Find women candidates. Run statewide. Focus on a few key issues, even if it’s risky, and hammer them home. Raise money. No matter the obstacles, get all your voters to the polls.

Stormy case deserves thoughtful review, not hype

 

Gordon L. Weil

Stormy Daniels never thought she’d be so famous.

Now, her alleged dalliance with Donald, the man who keeps reminding you he was President 45, has become the stuff of American history.

Trump nails down his place in history as the first former president to face a criminal indictment.  The indictment has unleashed the great American punditry and its flash wisdom.

Trump asserts that the charges are political.  His opponents drone on that “nobody is above the law.” He’s right and they’re wrong.  His goal in the case is to prove both points.

He’s right, because every important court case since life began under the Constitution has been political.  A lone federal judge in Texas, a Trump appointee whose courtroom was handpicked by the plaintiffs, has just banned parts of the Affordable Care Act nationally. People complaining that the Daniels case is political should check this out.

Trump promised to load the Supreme Court with justices who were openly opposed to abortion rights, and he did.  They killed Roe v. Wade.  That wasn’t a political decision?

Trump claims the true political purpose of the charges is to undermine his campaign for the presidency in 2024.  He may have hoped his early announcement would discourage any charges, leaving him able to claim they were politically motivated.  It could help him among Republicans, and it is a first-class money machine.

He is the master of using delay and similar tactics to forestall cases brought against him.  It seems that the New York County District Attorney thought he ought to act and try to avoid becoming entangled in delaying tactics after he decided he had enough evidence.

Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg also enjoys the kind of political isolation many other prosecutors, possibly one in Georgia, would lack.  He was overwhelmingly elected by voters who are obviously not big Trump backers. He is part of the New York State judicial system and the entire state government is politically impervious to Trump or Republican pressure.

He should also be safe from federal interference.  Under the Constitution, created by the states for the federal government, they retained jurisdiction over crimes committed entirely within their borders.  The wild attempt by House Republicans to investigate Bragg’s moves should go nowhere and violates the Constitution.  It’s political hype and will make noise.

The public may never know if Bragg consulted with other prosecutors dealing with the presidential papers case or the January 6 insurrection or his attempt in Georgia to have some voters switched to him.  But Bragg, in his position of relative safety, may have aided them by breaking ground in bringing charges and taking the heat for hauling Trump into court.

Give Bragg some credit. He is black and had to know that “the Donald” would skate around the edges of racism trying to discredit him. 

Because New York has acted, it is easier to foresee far more serious charges will bring Trump to trial.  In Georgia, a DA appears to be preparing charges that Trump illegally meddled in the vote counting process with the intention of finding enough ballots to overturn Joe Biden’s win there.

The federal Department of Justice is looking at his having kept presidential documents in open violation of the law and having caused the January 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection by his backers, who hoped to halt the presidential vote count.

But there is also good reason to question Bragg’s decision.  The first indictment of a former president on what is a comparatively minor matter may have weakened respect for the presidency itself. While Trump has already stripped the presidency of respect by using it for personal gain and scorning other countries, these charges may bring matters down to his level.

The charges would not have been grounds for impeachment and would probably not normally yield significant punishment.   The decision will be even more questionable if the proceedings look like a kangaroo court or the prosecution outright loses. The Trump campaign would probably be overjoyed and benefit from the outing.

The other risk from this prosecution is that, in this deeply divided country, it will pave the way for later prosecutors to bring legal actions, well founded or not, against future presidents.  Conviction after impeachment has become impossible, but this could be similar and much more easily used against an opponent.

To be sure, the threat of such cases could make future candidates and presidents more careful in how they conduct themselves to avoid serious embarrassment or worse. No longer can the aura of political celebrity serve as a guarantee against the consequences of regal behavior or illegal action.

In an age when social media passes as news reporting and pundits speculate irresponsibly, this is also a test to see if people can withhold their judgment until they have the facts.

Lawsuit against Trump could easily succeed; raised issue of government secrecy

 

Gordon L. Weil

Donald Trump’s Stormy Daniels hush money case has been getting prime media attention, but it matters far less than one potential federal case that could expose him to great legal jeopardy.

Some cases Trump faces may be relatively minor, hard to prove or purely political, but his holding onto presidential documents places him in what looks like a clear violation of federal law. The facts are beyond dispute.

Prime attention focuses on his keeping highly classified documents with inadequate safeguards. Trump’s hoarding may have endangered national security. The case has also raised new questions about just what information should be classified and kept secret.

Under the Presidential Records Act, a former president must promptly turn over to the National Archives all of his official papers. That allows his successors to know the policies and practices they inherit. The requirement was especially important when the outgoing President Trump prevented an orderly transition to the Biden administration.

The law requires turning over all documents, not only those labeled classified. The most sensitive files can include descriptions of intelligence methods, delicate data about foreign leaders and, worst of all, identification of secret American agents in hostile locations. Was any such information in Trump’s unlocked desk drawer? What did he keep and why?

Trump claims that he had the power to declassify documents, even if it only occurred in his own mind. Without proper public notice, that won’t wash. Could a citizen have obtained them through a Freedom of Information request? Of course not. People wouldn’t even know about their existence. Trump falsely implied his right to personalized declassification.

This case has raised questions about classified documents. Some of the documents found at Trump’s home and at sites controlled by Joe Biden and Mike Pence when they were vice president are undoubtedly routine and should not have been classified. But, in Trump’s case, some were obviously highly sensitive.

There’s no question that too many documents are classified, sometimes for reasons far removed from national security. And most of them never lose their protection, even after it is no longer justified.

Knowledge is power, and in their quest to demonstrate their key roles on major issues, some people in Washington like to create classified documents and keep others from seeing them. In a place where turf battles matter, the classified keep-away game is a major weapon. Or officials may classify to make sure their mistakes won’t be uncovered.

Government can use classification as a way of keeping secrets from the people on whose behalf it supposedly operates. Arrogant officials can make decisions affecting Americans based on information, possibly questionable, to which the public has no access. Without transparency, democracy suffers.

Here is where the media comes in. Its job is to reveal the secrets that threaten individual rights or cover up illegal actions. By definition, reporters are outsiders, so they may depend on whistleblowers to reveal the hidden truth. And they must be able to operate free from government control unless directly tied to national security or public safety.

The federal government claims to favor whistleblowers, but that promise is often broken. President Obama pursued them with a vengeance. Republicans tried mightily to uncover the whistleblower who revealed that Trump pressured Ukraine’s President Zelensky in hopes that he would investigate Joe Biden’s son during the 2020 presidential campaign.

Perhaps the most famous whistleblower was Daniel Ellsberg. In 1971, he gave to two major newspapers the Pentagon Papers, documents revealing the government had lied to Americans about the Vietnam War. The government tried to block publication, but the Supreme Court, recognizing press freedom, let the papers print. Federal charges against Ellsworth also failed.

Ellsworth is now dying and has been interviewed about breaking government secrecy. He says that classification “is a protection system against the revelation of mistakes, false predictions, embarrassments of various kinds and maybe even crimes.”

A critic claimed he undermined democracy by violating secrecy rules adopted by elected officials. He says those rules can protect those officials “from the possibility that their rivals will pick these things up and beat them over the head with it. Their rivals for office, for instance.” Could his concern explain Trump’s actions?

Long ago, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis made a statement criticizing unwarranted secrecy that has been boiled down to the saying “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech and a free press may be broader in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world. It helps protect the people from a government that would hide information from them. The American system supposedly depends on people making their own judgments after hearing both the truth and the lies.

Though not his intention, Trump’s documents violation may have brought new public attention to the use and misuse of government secrecy.

China-Russia summit highlights conflict over world order

Gordon L. Weil

The summit between China’s Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin amounted to a love fest between a power thirsty Communist and failed empire builder.

Xi has taken total control of his country, crushed self-rule in Hong Kong and resorts to obvious lies to justify his aggressive intent.  Putin faces an arrest warrant for kidnapping children, bombs to pieces a country that wants to face west and resorts to obvious lies to justify his aggressive intent. 

China’s boss makes two sharply conflicting claims.  He says that he wants to mediate a peaceful end to the Russia-Ukraine war.  Yet he favors Russia and won’t be visiting Volodymyr Zelensky in Kiev. Maybe a phone call. He is openly hostile to the extension of western style democracy, just what Ukraine seeks.

Upon arriving in Moscow, Xi stated that China and Russia shared the goal of multi-polar world not one under the American democratic model.  While China enjoys basking in the glow of American and European prosperity, by harvesting investments and pushing cut-rate exports, it opposes the system that makes that possible.

Nuclear armed Russia with vast territory and cheap oil for sale is becoming China’s junior partner.  Xi strokes Putin’s ego and backs his efforts to keep Europe in turmoil.  They may have differences, but their alliance, founded on hostility to the U.S., grows stronger.

Why does China seek to win a competition with the U.S.?  For one thing, there is power for its own sake.  Xi is tired of his country taking second place among world powers.  Thanks to its huge population, it will soon have a larger economy than the U.S.  For him, that is just the start.

Perhaps even more important may be Xi’s worry about the global spread of popular rule under variations of the American system of government.  China is controlled by the Communist Party with no dissent allowed. That control would likely end if the people were allowed free elections.  Preventing the spread of democracy and undermining its popularity is essential.

For Putin, China’s policy and his own anguish about NATO are just about the same.  While NATO has no designs on Russian territory, Putin harbors his country’s historical worry that Western Europe will invade the motherland. He wants Ukraine as Russia’s buffer, no matter what the Ukrainians want.

This is how the U.S. and its friends see the two major powers settling in as their long-term adversaries.  The divide may not equal the Cold War between the West and the Soviet Union, but it is a bitter rivalry.  Beyond a matter of survival, it is a no-holds-barred competition to subvert the other side and win dominance in Asia, Africa and even Latin America.

America and Europe plus Japan (the world’s third largest national economy), Britain, Canada, Australia and South Korea together are immensely richer and more powerful than China-Russia. They are beginning to respond.  For example, as Xi visited Putin in Moscow, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida visited Zelensky in Kiev.

The success of the response to the China-Russia challenge depends on America and its allies acting as partners.  The U.S. must favor international cooperation over outmoded isolation.

As the West responds to the new challenge, it should recognize its vulnerability. Problems with democracy and free enterprise, despite their surpassing value, serve to help China and Russia to discredit them. It’s essential to see ourselves as others see us.

In what should be the world’s most prosperous country, homeless people struggle for shelter and the drug economy is practically a country within a country. In some cities, the police and the people are in conflict.  The problems of the third world and resulting massive immigration issues have so far revealed a leaderless and dumfounded system worldwide.

Freedom is abused by partisan politicians who undermine democracy in their own quest for power.  Imagine an attack on the Capitol to overturn an election or a presidential candidate who concludes the Ukraine war is merely a “territorial dispute” or politicians who tamper with voting to guarantee their permanent hold on office.

Big corporations and their wealthy ruling class avoid paying for their privileges and oppose reasonable regulations.  That leaves government strapped for funds to provide essential services and unable to prevent bank failures or nail tax cheats.  Greed overcomes loyalty, endangering the people the government is supposed to represent and serve.

To some degree, the biggest challenge comes more from ourselves than from our avowed adversaries.  I always remember the admonition of my favorite mythical presidential candidate, the long-ago comic strip’s Pogo Possum: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

The Xi-Putin meeting unveiled their united hostility to Western values and their intent to defeat our hopes and ambitions.  It should also motivate the West to enhance and promote those values in deed as well as word. 

America has crisis of confidence

Gordon L. Weil

Welcome to this month’s crisis of confidence.

A bank failure, the debt ceiling conflict and the proposed Maine state budget have something in common. They all raise doubt about our confidence in institutions on which we depend.

The underlying cause is politics.  The effect of this loss of confidence in our government may be more important than how each issue is resolved.

The Silicon Valley Bank failed because of truly poor management.  Its executives invested their depositors’ funds unwisely, making it impossible for them to get their money out of the bank when they needed it.  What started with a trickle of withdrawals became a flood, and the bank failed.  Depositors in other banks panicked.  The problem spread, endangering the economy.

In 2008, banks got into trouble and some failed. The federal government shored up others. The lesson was learned, and Congress added new rules improving the chances that banks would hold enough available reserves to meet stepped up depositor withdrawals.

The biggest banks, the ones considered “too big to fail” because of the possibly massive effect of failure, are subject to “stress tests” to ensure their reserves are adequate.  So were other medium-size banks, but many, including SVB, disliked being checked.  The Trump administration backed off the scrutiny on all but the biggest.

The reversal was pushed by a dislike of what was claimed to be government overregulation. Unfortunately, the banking system turned out to need the safeguards.  Fortunately, there was a back-up.

To stop the panic right away, federal government regulators took over SVB and said depositors would get all their money.  Remember that little sign on the bank that says “Member FDIC.”  It means something. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, funded by banks, has the cash to cover the crash.

Nobody complains when the FDIC and the Federal Reserve, both government agencies, save the banking system.  But Republican deregulators now warn against using tax dollars to bail out the banks.  The federal agencies are not using taxpayer money and don’t need to.  But, if attacking “big” government scores political points, the opponents of regulation don’t back off.

Similarly, the partisan battle over raising the debt ceiling calls into question whether Washington will do a backdoor reversal, this time of spending decisions it has already made.  That raises doubts about the federal government’s ability to pay its debts, and the world’s financial system loses confidence in the most important currency – the U.S. dollar.

The reason why the dollar is the world’s main money is that the U.S. has a long history of paying what it owes lenders.  Plus, it’s the world’s largest economy. That creates great confidence in the dollar and, as a result, in the U.S.

If the U.S. defaults on its debt, weakening confidence in the dollar, number-two China is ready to offer its currency as the alternative.  American world power probably depends as much on the strength of the dollar as on the strength of the armed forces.  It boils down to a question of confidence: can the world still rely on America?

President Biden might solve the problem himself and ignore GOP attempts to hold the debt ceiling hostage to reversing previous spending decisions. The Constitution says the U.S. pays its debts. So, there may be no need for a debt ceiling bill at all, and Biden could prevent a crisis of confidence.

This can even happen in Maine.

In a 2004 referendum, Maine voters decided that the state should pay 55% of basic school costs. In another vote, they raised taxes on the wealthiest to pay for the added state budget cost.  The Legislature promptly overruled the voters and reversed the tax increase but capped state spending plus making a start on reaching 55%.

Under Gov. Janet Mills, the state now has enough money to pay the 55% and stay under the cap, which it has observed aside from funding the school adder.  Now, as part of her budget, she proposes to break the deal that had been made.  Flush with funds, state government seems to believe the cap, now almost 20 years old, can also be flushed.

The Maine GOP says the state should keep to a deal that was made after the Legislature overruled two referendums. If Mills wants to bury the deal, she could either ask for a clean vote on the issue by the Legislature or send the question back to the voters.

The governor has the legislative votes to do what she wants. But the action, as in the other two cases, explains a frequently heard citizen reaction to government.

Some voters say that politicians don’t keep their word, abandoning promises meant to reassure voters when they think the voters aren’t looking.  Lacking confidence in government, why vote?

The real message: low trust in government can threaten democracy.

Dangerous proposal for ‘national divorce’

Gordon L. Weil

Let’s get a divorce.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has loudly proposed a “national divorce” for the U.S. There are what the law calls “irreconcilable differences” between the Red states and the Blue states, so we should split up. Silly as that sounds, her proposal offers the chance for remembering just who this “odd couple” is.

Former GOP Rep. Liz Chaney says the proposal amounts to a call for secession from the U.S. But national divorce is neither legal nor possible in this law-abiding country. That’s what the Civil War settled. So Greene, a right-wing extremist, is really proposing the impossible.

In her view, the Blue states, those under Democratic (though she insists on “Democrat”) control, are imposing their woke will on the rest of the country. Everything from Social Security to environmental protection are part of a Democratic plot to replace freedom with socialism in her view.

Because the country is so closely divided, she wants to stop the Democrats by political separation, which would prevent them forcing their policies on Red states. The barrier would be high. If a Blue stater moved into a Red state, they would be banned from voting for five years. The same would have to be true in the other direction.

Her proposal has historical roots that have been torn out. The original American deal was based on a compromise about slavery. The U.S. accepted both slave and free states, and the choice was left to each state.

At first, there was an even balance. But free states would outnumber slave states, which worried that a national majority would end the practice. So they wanted to pick up and move out: national divorce. President Lincoln proposed to guarantee their system even if it could not extend elsewhere. But the slave states did not trust him and, as Lincoln lamented, “the war came.”

When the dust settled, slavery ended. The victors amended the Constitution to ensure that the federal government would gain much greater control of the states. Congressional majorities, formed by either side, could make laws that applied to all states. That’s what Greene does not like – majority rule.

The U.S. was built on an ingenious system of government. It would produce the world’s first functional federation with power shared between the national authority and the states that had created it. The combination would produce a great world power, while keeping governments that were close to the people. This was the second great compromise that made America.

Over time, the powers of the federal government grew. The Great Depression of the 1930s was an economic catastrophe that had to be met on a national level after it was shown that the states and private business failed to resolve it. New institutions and policies were developed for modern times.

In the decades of prosperity that have followed, the original opponents of federal action, mainly the Republicans, have come to chafe under those institutions and policies. In effect, they would turn back the clock. In Greene’s theory, states ought to be able to opt out.

The system has been based on the belief that future political differences would be resolved through new compromises. But increased equal treatment of African Americans, culminating in the election of Barack Obama as president, after the deep division caused by the Vietnam War, led to hostility to government in the Red states met by self-righteousness in the Blue states.

For the system to work requires both sides to be willing to compromise. In some communities and in some states, that was possible. But in Washington, the sides hardened. Compromise has become so rare that what should have been a common practice became a rare achievement. Members seldom negotiate; they often bloviate.

Compromise has been defined as a deal under which each side is equally unhappy. It’s based on the concept of “win a few, lose a few.”

But when each side believes in “winner takes all,” compromise is impossible. This fact has been brought home by the belief that when the GOP took control of the House this January, the possibility for action by a divided Congress virtually ended.

Greene, a dangerous partisan, sees no hope for cooperation. For her, the Democrats are simply bad guys, out to crush freedom in the name of big government. Just free the Red states from federal control and they’ll be able to preserve their ways.

But “divorce” would not stop there. Red states could continue to confront blue states. For example, the conservative Supreme Court ruled that abortion policy should be left entirely to the states, as Greene proposes. Now, conservatives seek a national judicial ban on a long-used abortion medication, even halting its use in states opting to allow abortions.

Utah’s GOP Gov. Spencer Cox has an answer to Greene: "We don’t need a divorce; we need marriage counseling."