1. I was among those who received an e-mail this morning from the former Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court, Charles T. Wells. I asked Justice Wells for permission to quote from his e-mail, and he agreed. I do so in this thread.
2. Background: Justice Wells was appointed by Democratic Governor Lawton Chiles to the Florida Supreme Court in 1994, and served until he retired in 2009. He served as Chief Justice from July 1, 2000, until June 30, 2002, and presided over the appeals in Bush v. Gore in 2000.
3. Here are excerpts from his e-mail to friends:
"I have never in the past written a letter or email to you about a preference in an election. I do so now with hesitancy because I know that you have concerns and interests which differ from mine.
4. "However, I set out my thoughts here because I am compelled to believe that our Country, and thus our children and grandchildren, face a grave threat to keeping the kind of representative democracy that we have experienced in our life.
5. "I do not believe that we have had as serious a threat during our lives.
I have worked hard at separating my thoughts about this from partisanship. As you know I had a unique experience in 2000. In that experience I had to separate my decision from partisanship.
6. "I was appointed to the Florida Supreme Court by a Democrat, but in Bush v Gore my objective analysis of the legal issues required me to write a dissenting opinion which...was cited in the majority and C.J. Rehnquist’s concurring opinion which decided the case.
7. "From my work in Bush v Gore I learned a great deal about the laws that control the election of the President. The law in respect to 'contested' elections is very confusing, outdated and fragile.
8. "I will not get into the details here. Suffice it though to say that President Trump’s threat to not accept the outcome of the election is a grave and real threat to our democracy.
9. "I have other reasons that I will not vote for Trump...But, those are not the reason I write to you. The reason I write is because the threat to this Country’s democracy is in my judgment grave and real.
10. "The only way that I can see that this threat can be eliminated is to vote for Biden. It will not be enough to just not vote for Trump. Any basis for a contested election can only really be eliminated by the election not being close.
11. "Again this year as in 2000 Florida will be a key and likely decisive state. I urge you to vote early and if by mail ensure that your vote gets to the Supervisor of Elections in your county.
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts."
END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. Like everyone else who's lived through the last decade, I've learned to doubt that anything Trump does, however gross, or any manifestation of Trumpism, however appalling, will make a difference.
But...maybe?
2. Maybe the disgusting comments about Puerto Rico and Hispanic Americans in general will cause some voters in Pennsylvania to turn away from Trump?
3. Maybe the racism about black Americans will remind some voters in Michigan which candidate respects them and which doesn't.
1. Good for the U.S. (though need to get rid of debt ceiling in 2025).
2. Good for Biden.
Re policy, domestic spending freezes no worse than the CRs that a GOP House would have produced. And over the four years spending on liberal priorities up.
2. Good for Biden (cont.)
Re politics: That it's two year deal very good. And if some on the left are unhappy, that doesn't hurt his case to moderate swing voters that they should vote for him again in 2024. Especially if there'll be a GOP House and/or Senate, which is likely.
3. Bad for Trump and Trumpism.
McCarthy's willingness to make the deal suggests that he (and other GOP elected leaders) will prioritize making the case for a GOP Congress in 2024 as needed to check (but also in a pinch to work with!) a Democratic president, a la Newt in 1996.
"[Delight] runs the risk of neglect at precisely the moment when delight might be most culturally beneficial...Slaves of anxiety and fear, surrounded by reasons for pessimism, we are in need of it. I would like to say a few words in defense of delight."
"The Marriage of Figaro is perhaps the last word on delight...By placing the laurel wreaths of artistic perfection on a comedy, Figaro is an invitation, in its details and in aggregate, to ponder the exquisiteness of delight."
"But it is this same fallible Count who...when confronted with his wife, when recognizing her, steps away from comedy. His request for forgiveness—the music leaves no doubt about this at all—is from the heart."
I'm less certain than @mkimmage that the request is from the heart.
"We must confess to being somewhat alarmed. Do our leaders, in the U.S. and Germany, have the sense of urgency that they ought to have? Do our leaders, in the U.S. and Germany, have the clarity of vision they might have?"
"This is no time for complacency. It’s time to reassert our unequivocal support for President Zelenskyy and the elected government in Kyiv. It’s actually time for more support for Ukraine and more pressure on Russia."
It's understandable that President Biden focused on domestic policy in his State of the Union speech. As a consequence perhaps, much was left unsaid about the state of the world. In the coming days and weeks, Biden should find an occasion to address these topics:
1. Iran. Not mentioned in the State of the Union. The president should express support for the brave women and men of Iran demanding freedom and democracy for their country. He could do so by sending a message to--or dropping by!-- the event Friday at Georgetown University...
1a. ...where leading pro-democracy Iranian activists who are abroad will be joining together to show unity and support for the demonstrators at home. And there are practical steps the Administration could take to increase pressure on the regime and to help the demonstrators.
What if we had a Republican Party that behaved like a loyal opposition?
What if leading Republicans in Congress, and prominent Republicans who'd served in the previous administration, cared more about weakening President Xi than attacking President Biden?
2. Yes, Republicans would raise questions about the Administration's handling of the balloon. They'd say they looked forward to learning more from key defense and intelligence officials about what happened and why, and that they reserved the right to criticize President Biden.
3. But they would emphasize this point: Even if Biden could have done more, that the balloon mission was a failure and an embarrassment for the Xi regime. That it was a foolish act--perhaps even an act of desperation--by Xi and his cronies.