PAST IS PROLOGUE, PRESENT NEED NOT BE FUTURE
As I listen to the opening of the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) it highlights how all-consuming and all-corrupting our politics has become. The main themes of the argument against the nomination appear to be the timing of the nomination and the impact that it may, or may not, have on the survival of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
In regard to the timing, it is entirely a political argument, not a structural or procedural one. It exists in large part because of the cancerous divisions that our politics have created in our institutions, our government, and in our public discourse. In large part the Republican Senate created the argument itself in its chosen course of action when Merrick Garland was nominated by then President Obama. At that time the Senate and the Presidency were divided and the Senate chose, within it’s rights and authority, to not hold hearings on the nomination. This was a political choice, one which the Republicans wanted to escape the political responsibilities and consequence of by making the argument that the hearings should not be held in the final year of a President’s second term. Let’s wait for the voters to speak, they said. They handed the Democrats the argument they level today. Yes, the circumstances are somewhat different, but the drive-by appearance is the same. Now those words come back to bite them, just as Harry Reid’s elimination of the 60 vote threshold for approval of other judicial nominees has returned to bite the Democrats. The Republicans should have had the courage and conviction to stand firmly in their position without employing what they knew were arguments of appearance rather than substance. However, had they simply said we are within our constitutional rights to not hold the hearings they knew they would likely pay a price at the ballot box that November in many races, and they sought to dodge that cost. The fact is that costless courage is not courage at all, but rather cowardice, and cowardice carries its own price.
Regarding the impact that the nomination may or may not have on the ACA, it is in fact a misguided argument and one by which the elected yet again seek to shirk their own responsibility and the consequences of their inadequate work. The argument is framed as such, the ACA does good things so we must keep it. The SCOTUS’ job is not to evaluate a law’s “goodness” or to apply public opinion, but rather to evaluate the appropriateness of its content and construction within the bounds of the US Constitution. Democrats it would seem, if taken at their words, would have us keep a law that should be struck down because it yields worthy ends, while ignoring the corruptive and destructive nature of the means that produced it. A justice who rejects the ACA isn’t ending it, but rather returning it to the hands of the politicians who did not properly honor its content and their own sworn duty in the first place. SCOTUS, if it intends to keep with its appropriate and essential role, must objectively evaluate the Act against the Constitution and proper legislative procedure and if it is found deficient, then it must be returned to the Legislative branch. The elected must then do their job and act upon it, and finally, the people must bear their responsibility and have their say in response to those actions. If any of us are willing to concede to keeping ill-prepared law because it does good things, then we have sacrificed America on the garish blood-soaked alter of politics.
And so a new political theme emerges: If you wish to avoid scrutiny and consequences for your own poor labor, then work to direct that scrutiny elsewhere. So many in the legislative branch seek to push their responsibilities upon the judicial branch. That is improper and a shirking of their own duties. You cannot hastily pass flawed legislation, count on the bureaucracy and administrative behemoth of government to keep it alive, and then blame others for its failings. In doing so the people who govern us announce themselves as the scoundrels they are. Legislators who are scared that their work will not survive, should invest more of their effort in producing better work product. Even at this moment, the Congress and those who wish to see the ACA and many of it’s worthy objectives live on, are they working to develop improved legislation that achieves the ends but this time by means that will sustain it? No, and why should they, there are political games to be played and an election on the near horizon. Don’t worry though, they will get to the real work after the election. Hold that thought, the next election is a mere two years away, the real work will again have to wait.
Every single time that the elected place their political objectives above the oath they swore, above the constitution they serve, and the people they are meant to represent, they do irreparable harm to our nation, harm that echoes for eternity and which will ultimately accumulate to a point that it ends the American experiment. If you want a preview of our governance for decades to come simply watch these hearings. We must begin to escape this, we must choose a place to start to do so, and I humbly offer that opportunity in New York’s 18th Congressional District.
(Originally published on Facebook, 10/13, 9:17 AM)
Scott Smith Holds Campaign Kick-Off (Full Video)
Scott Smith holds a Campaign Kick Off Event at Thomas Bull Memorial Park in Montgomery, NY, September 8, 2020. Smith is the Serve America Movement (SAM) Cand...
Scott Smith holds a Campaign Kick Off Event at Thomas Bull Memorial Park in Montgomery, NY, September 8, 2020. Smith is the Serve America Movement (SAM) Candidate running in New York's 18th Congressional District. The candidate explains why he is running and elaborates on the priorities of his campaign. Learn more at www.MrSmithForCongress.com
In this video I describe the dangers of our current division-based political paradigm as well as highlight some very concerning facts about my opponents.
The Scott Smith for Congress Campaign has worked to keep the Press/Media informed, but have they been informing you?
Baskin Robbins Justice Is No Justice At All
Some of us are old enough to remember Baskin Robbins’ commercials advertising their 31 different flavors of ice cream. An ice cream connoisseur’s paradise. You could literally try a different flavor every day and depending on the month you’d have to flip the calendar page before you’d tried them all. Variety is the spice of life, a welcome quality in so many aspects of our existence. One place however where variety does not belong is in the realm of justice.
Justice is a critical principle and a foundational pillar of our civil society. Unfortunately, as has occurred with so many of our fundamental principles a certain degree of fluidity has been inflicted upon it by those who are served by its ambiguity. In an effort to be clear, allow me to review what justice is. To define justice we must first define the concept of law. Law is, as defined by Aristotle, “Reason, free from passion”. Justice in turn is the “equal, impartial application of the law”. Therefore, when any party is held to the law they should be viewed equally and as such no regard given for any qualities that may distinguish them, and nor should passion be allowed to stir in response to any commonality or contrast in such. Justice, as they say, must be blind.
Over the past several years there has been an increasing clamor for various forms of justice. These range from economic justice, to gender justice, to social justice, to racial justice, to environmental justice, or is it climate justice, and more will undoubtedly be birthed in the days to come. The problem with these flavors of justice is that although the underlying concerns they stem from may be valid, the diversification of justice is anything but. Along with a myriad variety of justices comes the inevitable clash or conflict of the varieties. What is one to do when such conflicts arise? How shall we decide which variety of justice prevails? Is my justice more just than yours, or yours more just than mine?
Before you become too concerned about resolving the most just among the forms of justice allow me to put you at ease. The government is here to help. Embodied with the most honest, sincere, and selfless among us it will devise a guide, a rubric if you will, to evaluate each instance and to see to it that the proper justice is done. The rubric will evaluate criteria such as gender/gender identity, age, race, creed, cause, socioeconomic status, sexuality, quotas based on proportionality, and last but certainly not least, party affiliation. And there you have it, the justice that is the “most justest” will prevail.
If it sounds kind of silly, it is a bit perhaps, but you can witness it occurring today. In recent weeks whether you were punished and ridiculed for not complying with Executive Orders, or whether you were permitted and praised for doing so was based entirely on your purpose. Further, whether or not you were charged and prosecuted for certain crimes was entirely based on what cause you served, rather than on your actions measured against an objective application of the law. That, ladies and gentleman, is literally as far from justice as you can get. We all believe in and desire to see justice done, but you cannot serve a principle by sacrificing it. Oh, and let’s not even talk about freedom of speech, wait, am I allowed to say that?
Forget, Repeat, Forget, Repeat.....
In government, politics has become the main event, doing the actual work is a distraction. Governing responsibly and effectively has become Washington's side-gig. Even now, politicians angle for advantage and try to attain objectives they have been unable to achieve under non-crisis circumstances. As a result, we have been caught flat-footed by COVID-19, how much better prepared could we have been if government focused on it's work?
The problems we are experiencing regarding preparation and implementation were foreseen, but never actually addressed. This is a GOVERNMENT failure. It's not a Republican or Democrat failure, it's a Republican AND Democrat failure.
A quick survey of articles from the time of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic quickly makes clear that major hurdles to an effective response at that time were: dependence on raw materials and reagents from foreign sources, a lack of adequate vaccine production capacity within the US, and inadequate reserves of critical supplies. Sounds familiar doesn't it? The press reported, the elected opined and held hearings, and everyone insisted they would see to it that it did not happen again. Yet it did. Many in government now were there in 2009.
Nothing would be significantly different if we were in the midst of a Democrat administration. We'd be hearing the same words just out of different mouths. Those condemning the Trump Administration excused the Obama Administration, and vice versa. Otherwise we'd be in exactly the same situation. If we don't get past the same routine, then 10 years from now there will be another pandemic threat and we'll get to watch it all over again.
The true test of this administration, in fact the true test of us as a nation, is not this contemporary pandemic, but rather the next one. Will we have changed the story that lies ahead or will it be groundhog day all over again?
Any office holder or candidate for office must commit to the following priorities in this regard:
Repatriate production of medical supplies to the US
Repatriate vaccine production to the US
Fully Stock the SNS to the level necessary to address a Pandemic
Get Government out of the way in advance and when necessary
There will be short term pain with this, but it is nothing compared to the pain of failing to act. How many times must we revisit the potential consequences before we recognize the risk and see the value of the investment?
Mother nature creates, and she does so with elegance and ferocity. Some of her creations do us harm, and for that we can't really blame her or hold her accountable. However, there is something much more lethal to us all as individuals and to our nation. That pathogen is politics. There are two distinct strains, each equally devastating, and together synergistically so.
Lastly, politicians suddenly finding shadows of the character and integrity that their office demands, only when faced with a pandemic, does NOT justify maintaining them in office.
Smith Shares Stance on Term Limits
Candidates for office are quick to voice their support for term limits without offering broader discussion or perspective on what it really means or how it would function in practice. I would also remind people that in recent history many candidates and the elected proclaimed they would among other things, “Stop Common Core," or “Repeal and Replace the ACA," or “Limit the influence of big money in politics”. These and so many other pledges share the distinction of having gone unfulfilled. Words are easy.
In regard to the Term Limits pledge, examine what it says. The pledge reads as follows: “I, __________, pledge that as a member of Congress I will cosponsor and vote for the U.S. Term Limits Amendment of three (3) House terms and two (2) Senate terms and no longer limit.”
If you have paid any attention to congress over the years one thing that is glaringly apparent is that they vote on all kinds of things, over and over again, more often than not to no actual consequence. Show votes or votes of political theater are the norm, not the exception. Therefore, to pledge to “co-sponsor and vote for” an amendment is largely inconsequential. Granted, making the pledge is in the scheme of things better than not making it, but recognize it for what it is. The substantive pledge would be to impose a term limit upon oneself regardless of whether Congress and those who embody it ever develop the will to legislate such. I don’t recommend holding your breath while waiting for such a bill to become law.
I have proposed term-limits since I first declared my candidacy in the 2104 race and further pledged to never work as a lobbyist. Not only have I said such things, but I have previously acted in accord with them. While serving on the City Council in Middletown, I opposed the removal of voter implemented term limits by the Council (1). It is instructive to note that the ability of the council to remove the term-limits by mere council vote was a by-product of then NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s shenanigans in pursuit of a 3rd term (2). It is a rare thing that politicians will limit themselves; it is more commonly the opposite.
Another, and perhaps more important consideration, is the notion that limiting the “professional politicians” to a certain number of terms will necessarily have a large impact on governance. Perhaps many people are not familiar with the inner workings of the electoral process, particularly in terms of ballot access and candidate selection, or the degree to which it is monopolized by the two Major political parties. Already in NY efforts are underway to further inhibit access to the ballot and to thwart electoral competition. To get straight to the point, the candidates for office are selected by the party infrastructure. Removing candidates by way of term limits will not change the fact that their replacements will then be selected by the same party infrastructure. It is highly optimistic to believe that the resulting “new” candidates will not be selected to serve and advance the parties interests just as the “old” candidate had done. Again, term limits should be implemented; however, people must temper their expectations as to their efficacy.
Although candidate Farley states “Term limits will make members of Congress accountable to the people they represent, instead of to Washington insiders,” she must recognize that it will take much more than that including broader honest competition. Similarly, Congressman Maloney speaks often of the competitive nature of the 18th District and how he welcomes open competition. In addition, he has on more than one occasion stated that he believes there should be more policemen, firefighters, and teachers running for congress. However, when he had the opportunity to act on those proclamations his deeds fell far from his words.
In light of all of this I make the following challenge to Ms. Farley and Mr. Maloney: Make and stand by the pledge that I have made. Pledge to adhere to a self-imposed term-limit AND to never work as a lobbyist following your service. In addition, endeavor to have your actions align with your words.
(2) https://www.recordonline.com/article/20100828/NEWS/8280326
In observing the ongoing Impeachment process there is much to consider. In regard to the nature of the proceedings themselves some distinct perspectives stand out. First, if one operates under the presumption that an impeachable offense has occurred, then the partisan divide in government has grown so cancerous that it prevents our elected representatives from properly performing their constitutional duties. Second, if one operates under the presumption that an impeachable offense has not occurred, then the partisan divide in government has grown so corrupting that it has driven our elected representatives to abuse the impeachment process in service to political ends. Admittedly, a third possibility exists, that one political side is righteous and faithful to their duties, and the other is not. Choose for yourself which party deserves which label. I can’t speak for everyone, but I am well beyond this particular belief.
Whichever the case may be, it is also clear that both sides of the political divide are more than happy to look for and take advantage of the optics of the events for political gain. Two clear examples of this include the late-night Nadler nonsense and the Stefanik stunt. In the former instance Chairman Nadler abruptly postponed the committee vote to allow members time to consider their decision. The suggestion that any of the voting members were not already decided is absurd and an insult to the intelligence of us all. It was clearly done in pursuit of a more favorable televised viewing time. In the latter instance, Representatives Stefanik and Nunes orchestrated a dramatic scene where the congresswoman was repeatedly shut down by Chairman Schiff. The nature, content, and validity of her questions aside, Representative Stefanik and Representative Nunes had to know full well that the rules allowed for her questions, but that she was asking them at an inappropriate time in the proceeding. Asking them at the appropriate time, which she eventually did, would not have provided the same visuals.
If after subjecting yourself to the proceedings you desire some humor, then you need only dig up comments from the current members who also held office during the last Impeachment. It is beyond comical the degree to which they are all quoting each others past comments and talking points.
All of the above boldly punctuates the fact that we the people have a House in desperate need of cleaning.
Whether sitting in the court room listening to the SBG busing case last week, or observing the politics that are in practice today, or the conduct of our press and media, or the sad state of our education system, or any of the major problems we face as a nation today, it universally boils down to the absence of objective constructs. Everything has become subjective, situational, and superficial. This is why a Foundationalist approach is required. We must reestablish Objective Constructs for Governance – political, civil/social, and personal.
Candidate Scott Smith expands on the "Foundationalist" philosophy, particularly in regards to our American Flag.
Scott Smith, Candidate for Congress in New York's 18th Congressional District Discusses Commitment.