In 2020, pivotal events ushered in a season of antiracism rhetoric in the U.S. The brutal deaths of unarmed black Americans at the hands of police officers and white vigilantes, and the disproportionately harsh impact of COVID-19 in the black American community, launched the nation into a discussion about systemic racism. Unfortunately, it seems likely that the 2020 antiracism discourse was merely seasonal rather than enduring, and unlikely to result in meaningful change. 

Black American’s vulnerability in the face of systemic racism is not limited to death, sickness and injury as a result of COVID-19 or antiblack bias in police departments. Our vulnerability is precipitated by things like lack of access to nonpredatory financial services. This is just one of the contexts that compromise black Americans’ economic survival. Unacknowledged systemic racism destroys the wealth and wellbeing of black individuals, families and communities, sometimes causing working and middle-class black Americans to plummet into poverty. As 2020 comes to a close, an election that threatened democracy in the U.S. and the existential threats of an uncontrolled pandemic, eclipse a system of intentional antiblack racism on the part of the financial institutions that engaged in predatory mortgage lending in the years leading up to and beyond the 2008 recession. It is now well documented that lenders, brokers, and mortgage servicers engaged in conduct that was fraudulent and misleading. The mortgage market charged excessively high rates and fees, engaged in high-pressure sales tactics, imposed unnecessarily harsh prepayment penalties, and distorted loan structures to avoid the application of consumer protection statutes.  But, more than a decade later, many black Americans are still fighting to prevent financial institutions from taking away their homes. 

In a book I coauthored with Dr. Janis Sarra, a law professor at the University of British Columbia, Predatory Lending and the Destruction of the African American Dream (Cambridge University Press, 2020), we describe new iterations of predation that continue to target black consumers years after financial institutions settled litigation that alleged pervasive fraud on their part for steering black Americans into predatory subprime loans. But these renovated predatory practices are obscured by the nation’s focus on COVID-19 and a vitriolic election season. Meanwhile, more black Americans will lose their homes even after investing all or most of their wealth in attempts to keep them. This reality requires the calls for moratoriums on mortgage foreclosures to be answered in the affirmative.

On December 1st, 2020, Nasdaq filed a proposal with the Securities and Exchange Commission to adopt additional listing rules requiring enhanced board diversity and disclosure of firm diversity efforts.  The new listing rules require Nasdaq-listed companies to have on their board of directors, at least two diverse directors, including one who self-identifies as female and one who self-identifies as an underrepresented minority or LGBTQ+.  If the firm does not meet this listing requirement, it must explain why they do not have at least two diverse directors sitting on their board.  Additionally, the new listing rules require Nasdaq-listed companies to publicly disclose consistent, transparent diversity statistics regarding its board of directors.  Nasdaq defines underrepresented minorities to include Black or African America, Hispanic or Latinx, Asian, Native American or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, two or more races or ethnicities.  Smaller reporting companies and foreign companies have additional flexibility in satisfying these new listing requirements by seating at least two female directors.  These new listing rules require approval from the SEC.

NASDAQ's stated goal for requiring diversity among its listed companies board makeups is to provide the investing public with a "better understanding of the company's current board composition and enhance investor confidence that all listed companies are considering diversity in the context of selecting directors, either by including at least two diverse directors on their boards or explaining their rationale for not meeting that objective." To support this new listing requirement, Nasdaq pointed to over 24 studies that found a link between diverse board and more robust financial performance with better corporate governance.  Under this proposal, Nasdaq-listed companies are required to publicly disclose board-level diversity statistics within one year of the SEC's approval of the rule.

CNN reports that Nasdaq CEO Adena Friedman stated, "Nasdaq's purpose is to champion inclusive growth and prosperity to power stronger economies." Non compliance by Nasdaq-listed companies could lead to delisting.  

Nasdaq's move is part of a growing momentum to see that corporate board diversity is taken seriously across the United States.  California has for two years been requiring gender diversity on corporate boards and has recently begun requiring racial and ethnic diversity on California boards as well.  Goldman Sachs has recently announced that it will require any company that it assists in taking public must include at least one diverse board member. 

The Corporate Justice Blog has long advocated for board diversity as a priority for expanding human capital and realizing greater financial benefits for the firms and its shareholders. We argue that a commitment to diversifying the board, both in gender and racial diversity as well as worldview diversity enhances the performance of the corporations that so commit.  See here, here, here and here.

hat tip:  Deepali Lal, 3L, Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law 

photo: courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Several years ago, my friend, colleague and mentor, andre cummings, and I created and defined what we call "Corporate Justice."  "At its core, Corporate Justice refers to a responsibility, even a moral obligation, which businesses and corporations have to engage fairly, civilly and responsibly in the world and community that they do business and from which they derive profits. More than that, the concept of Corporate Justice also focuses on the roles that shareholders, policy makers, other stakeholders and the community at large have in fostering a more just and responsible business community."  Our conversation led to the creation of a course, a book, several presentations, and this blog.  In conceptualizing "Corporate Justice," our primary focus was on large corporations and their impact on the world around us.  That perspective influenced much of the work we have completed on the topic as well as the way that we conceptualized its impact.  However, after a recent community event I facilitated here in Miami, Florida, I was presented with a thought provoking question “what does corporate justice mean for small businesses?”  I had never considered this question and realized that I had made a substantial oversight in failing to do so.  Small business are the life line of many communities and they meet the immediate needs of the people in areas in which they operate.  Given that reality, I have begun to critically think about what Corporate Justice at the “micro” level means.  Specifically, do small businesses have the same obligations that we might expect from large corporations?  Over the next few days I plan to think more about this question and welcome your input and insight.  Next week, I will provide you with my initial response.  I look forward to reading about your insights on the issue.  

 

Wikimedia Commons Philadelphia County Prison

In an important move that returns federal government policy to the Obama era, today President Biden signed an executive order calling on the Department of Justice to ends its use of private prisons.  While this executive order does not end federal government reliance on for-profit immigration detention centers, it does require that no future contracts with private prison operators be entered into between the federal government and private prison corporations CoreCivic, GEO Group and others.  Use of the executive order to end private for-profit prison reliance has proven difficult politically as Obama ended their use before the 2016 election, but once Trump entered the White House, he rescinded the policy and made robust use of private prisons for federal prisoners as well as immigration detention.

Eyewitness accounts regarding the events of January 6, 2021 give us the most reliable version of what happened that dark day. Particularly those eyewitnesses from the Republican Party who do not seek partisan advantage. For example:

"What happened here today was an insurrection incited by the President of the United States."

Republican Senator & former Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney, Jan. 6, 2021. 

"Today’s violent assault on our Capitol, an effort to subjugate American democracy by mob rule, was fomented by Mr. Trump. His use of the presidency to destroy trust in our election and to poison our respect for fellow citizens has been enabled by pseudo political leaders whose names will live in infamy as profiles in cowardice."

Former Trump Defense Secretary and Marine Corps General James Mattis, Jan. 6, 2021.

"The mob was fed lies. They were provoked by the president and other powerful people. And they tried to use fear and violence to stop a specific proceeding of the first branch of the federal government which they did not like."

GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Jan. 19, 2021

"Today was a dark day in the history of the United States Capitol… We condemn the violence that took place here in the strongest possible terms… To those who wreaked havoc in our Capitol today, you did not win. Violence never wins. Freedom wins."

Trump Vice-President Mike Pence, January 6, 2021.

"These men and women in the uniform, they got overrun. One officer got killed…they got broken arms. You don’t understand what was transpiring at that moment and that time. . . . People brought ropes. . .[T]hey were well planned for it. They scaled walls. . . . They, they overtook the place.”

"Let me be clear: Last week’s violent attack on the Capitol was undemocratic, un-American and criminal…And make no mistake: Those who are responsible for Wednesday’s chaos will be brought to justice…The president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters."

GOP House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Jan. 13, 2021 

"Today, the people's House was attacked, which is an attack on the Republic itself. There is no excuse for it. A women died. And people need to go to jail. And the President should never have spun up certain Americans to believe something that simply cannot be."

GOP Rep. Chip Roy, Jan. 6, 2021.

WOW!  The US Capitol became a combat zone on January 6.

The legal upshot of the above is Trump and his cultists levied war against the US in violation of 18 USC section 2381! They engaged in an insurrection in violation 18 USC section 2383!

These provisions carry severe criminal sanctions and section 2383 prohibits insurrectionists from ever holding federal office again. Trump also disqualified himself from federal office under the Fourteenth Amendment, section 3. As painful as it may be, the Biden Administration has little choice but to fully investigate these potential violations of law immediately. Donald Trump in particular must face swift justice. .

In his unending fantasy and lies of victory, President Donald Trump unleashed a violent coup on our democracy, our constitutional republic and ultimately our freedom in the lawless pursuit of autocracy, dictatorship, and dimwitted megalomania. 

This directly aided and abetted the ongoing efforts of Vladimir Putin to use Russian New Generation Warfare (RNGW) to weaken, undermine, subvert, and diminish the power of the USA to defend itself and its interests and allies across the world. As Lt. General H.R. McMaster explains RNGW aims to weaken the US and other democratic societies through the sustained use of misinformation. They seek to “disrupt, divide and weaken” American democracy. Yet, again the Trumpists continue to toss the nation and its people into bloody pitched battle with each other while doing the bidding of Putin.

Addendum:

"[T]here can be no soft-pedaling what happened and no absolution for those who planned, encouraged and aided the attempt to overthrow our democracy, Love of country demands nothing less. That’s true patriotism.” 

Karl Rove, writing in the Wall Street Journal, Former Republican Political Operative, January, 6, 2022.

"The importance of January 6th as an historic event cannot be overstated. I was honored and proud to join my daughter on the House floor to recognize this anniversary, to commend the heroic actions of law enforcement that day, and to reaffirm our dedication to the Constitution.  I am deeply disappointed at the failure of many members of my party to recognize the grave nature of the January 6 attacks and the ongoing threat to our nation.”

Former Republican Vice President Dick Cheney, January 6, 2022. 

January 6th, 2021 was a dark day for Congress and our country. The United States Capitol, the seat of the first branch of our federal government, was stormed by criminals who brutalized police officers and used force to try to stop Congress from doing its job. This disgraceful scene was antithetical to the rule of law. One year later, I am as grateful as ever for the brave men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police who served our institution bravely that day and every day since. I continue to support justice for those who broke the law.

GOP Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, January 6, 2022. 

On the first anniversary of January 6, GOP Senator Ted Cruz and Trump-appointed FBI Director Christopher Wray called the violence "a violent terrorist attack on the Capitol" and "domestic terrorism," respectively.

Stellantis, the automobile conglomerate that owns Jeep, formed recently from the merger of Fiat Chrysler and Peugeot, defended its use of the Cherokee name claiming "our vehicle names have been carefully chosen and nurtured over the years to honor and celebrate Native American people for their nobility, prowess and pride."  This argument echoes the same arguments used for decades by Daniel Snyder, the owner of the Washington Football Team (formerly the Redskins) and the owners of the Cleveland Indians (who have also recently agreed to change the team name after phasing out the offensive Chief Wahoo logo a few years ago).  For Stellantis, the Grand Cherokee is one of Jeep's most popular models selling more than 200,000 units in 2020.

Suzan Shown Harjo, long an activist fighting against cultural misappropriation and offensive use of American Indian imagery, is not buying the "honor" argument.  "Of course it's not an honor" states Harjo, "That’s the assumption that was made by so many people about our land, water, gold, silver, copper — name a mineral. Now it’s about our imagery, our names and our cultural icons . . . When does this thievery stop?"  

The Cherokee Nation describes itself as a sovereign tribal government. "Upon settling in Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma) after the Indian Removal Act, the Cherokee people established a new government in what is now the city of Tahlequah, Oklahoma. A constitution was adopted on September 6, 1839, 68 years prior to Oklahoma’s statehood.  Today, the Cherokee Nation is the largest tribe in the United States with more than 380,000 tribal citizens worldwide. More than 141,000 Cherokee Nation citizens reside within the tribe’s reservation boundaries in northeastern Oklahoma. . . . The Cherokee Nation is committed to protecting our inherent sovereignty, preserving and promoting Cherokee culture, language and values, and improving the quality of life for the next seven generations of Cherokee Nation citizens."

Whether Jeep drops the moniker will likely depend on whether the same kind of financial pressure is brought against Jeep and Stellantis similar to what was brought to bear on Daniel Snyder and the Washington Football Team and corporate entities like Aunt Jemima, Land-O-Lakes and Uncle Ben's.  Each of these entities have been persuaded to change/drop racist depictions and monikers because of the economic pressure of threatened boycotts and sponsorship withdrawals, particularly in light of the 2020 summer of protests following the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.

hat tip: Savannah Johnston, Arkansas Little Rock Bowen School of Law, 3L

images courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

I was an associate at Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison from 1988 until 1991. These almost three years were impactful even though my time there was brief. To say that I learned a great deal is an understatement. My work at the firm took me to places like Gracie Mansion, and to Hollywood for several weeks to perform due diligence for a music publishing company. My time there was further evidence of my African American family’s dramatic upward mobility in just six generations. My maternal grandmother was the granddaughter of enslaved African Americans. She worked as a maid and cook before she went back to school. With a sixth-grade education, she passed the New York State licensing exam for cosmetology. She opened a successful hair salon, and she and my grandfather sent my mom to Hunter College. My mother retired decades ago from a successful career as a scientist and school administrator. And when I went to Paul Weiss, I was making more money than anyone in my immediate and extended family had ever made.

There were about 400 lawyers at the firm’s New York office during the years I was there. Only six of those lawyers (associates) were Black/African American. None of the approximately 80 partners were Black.  My time at Paul Weiss was brief because my plan was to become a law professor. But while I was at the firm, I was supported and mentored. That is why I was surprised to see a 2018 LinkedIn photo of the firm’s new partners in which almost all were white and male. None were Black.

Happily, much has changed in the years since I was associated with the firm, and even in the almost three years after the LinkedIn photo. I attended the firm’s webinar (The Biden Administration:  What’s Next for Businesses) on March 3^rd, 2021. Two of the firm’s (Black) litigation partners were on the panel– Loretta Lynch, former U.S. Attorney, and Jeh Johnson, Former Secretary of Homeland Security. After the webinar I went to the firm’s website that reported the following: “27% of our attorneys self-identify as racially diverse compared to the 20% Big Law average” and “Racially diverse partners are 13% of the equity partnership, compared to the 8% national average”. 

After seeing this website report, I was left wondering how many of these “racially diverse” individuals are Black. Paul Weiss played such a significant role in the upward trajectory of my African American family. And Paul Weiss issued a statement in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death. But its racial diversity disclosure had only a fraction of the precision that has made the firm a giant in the legal profession. Law firms can address antiblack racism, if they choose to do so, only if they confront the problem and its impact on the success of Black lawyers. Firms can’t do this if they fail to consider that Black lawyers face issues that are saliently different from those endured by white women, and indigenous, Asian and Latinx individuals. Firms can make their disclosure on these issues more meaningful by counting the Black lawyers. If the numbers are not good (on retention, percentages of partners), it’s time for the firm to engage in some meaningful introspection.

Oh, and one more small, but important point. People of color bring racial diversity to an organization. White people bring racial diversity to an organization. But to say that an individual (a partner, for example) is “racially diverse” is the kind of inaccurate, imprecise language that clouds discussions about difficult issues like antiblack racism. 

Some of the most significant corporate commitments have come from JPMorgan Chase, Microsoft, AMEX, Bank of America, PayPal, Salesforce and Chase.  These large corporate commitments do not account for the other minority-focused investments, such as JP Morgan's initiative to lend more openly to minority owned businesses and black and brown home purchasers.  The corporate giving trend is fueled by changing expectations of younger employees and progressive consumers that expect corporations to become serious about corporate responsibilities to social issues and causes.  Advocates argue that these corporate commitments will not be enough to achieve racial equity in housing, employment and policing, but acknowledge that if these corporations are serious about their commitments, that it can mark an important start.  "'The world is changing, and the expectations of how companies engage are changing,' said Brandee McHale, Citi’s head of community investing and development."

ABC News reports that "[s]ince late May, Grabois said, financial commitments by companies to racial equity causes have grown 'exponentially larger' than any other cause other than COVID-19. A report by McKinsey & Company, which tracked corporate responses from May to October, found that of the top 1,000 U.S. companies, 18% made internal commitments, like diversifying their hiring, and 22% pledged to promote racial equity through donations or other means."

Whether corporate giving to racial equity causes results in systemic change and reform remains to be seen.  Holding corporations to their commitments will likely be an important undertaking.

photo courtesy of wikimedia commons

The Biden administration's nomination of and subsequent Senate confirmation of Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland is a monumentally important moment in our nation's history.  Secretary Haaland becomes the first Cabinet level Secretary of Native American descent in the history of the nation.  This after Ms. Haaland served as the first native Congressperson (along with Sharice Davids of Kansas, both elected in 2018) in U.S. history.  This nomination and confirmation is critical for many reasons, including according to Secretary Haaland herself:  “A voice like mine has never been a Cabinet secretary or at the head of the Department of Interior,” she wrote on Twitter before the vote. “Growing up in my mother’s Pueblo household made me fierce. I’ll be fierce for all of us, our planet, and all of our protected land.”

The New York Times reports:  "Representative Deb Haaland of New Mexico made history on Monday when the Senate confirmed her as President Biden’s secretary of the Interior, making her the first Native American to lead a cabinet agency.  Ms. Haaland in 2018 became one of the first two Native American women elected to the House. But her new position is particularly redolent of history because the department she now leads has spent much of its history abusing or neglecting America’s Indigenous people.  Beyond the Interior Department’s responsibility for the well-being of the nation’s 1.9 million Native people, it oversees about 500 million acres of public land, federal waters off the United States coastline, a huge system of dams and reservoirs across the Western United States and the protection of thousands of endangered species."

Secretary Haaland said the following at her Senate confirmation hearing:  “You’ve heard the Earth referred to as Mother Earth, it’s difficult to not feel obligated to protect this land. And I feel every Indigenous person in the country understands that.”

Again, per the NY Times: "Ms. Haaland will quite likely assume a central role in realizing Mr. Biden’s promise to make racial equity a theme in his administration. Ms. Haaland, a member of the Laguna Pueblo who identifies herself as a 35th-generation New Mexican, will assume control of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Indian Education, where she can address the needs of a population that has suffered from abuse and dislocation at the hands of the United States government for generations, and that has been disproportionately devastated by the coronavirus."

A hearty congratulations to Secretary Haaland on this momentous appointment, to President Biden for the foresight to seize this moment, and for an appointment that was far too long in the making.

photo in the public domain

 

All times are Eastern.  

To register and attend by Zoom for free, click here.

The Tulsa Law Review will host a special symposium issue of the law review as part of a commemoration of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre with a one-day live/hybrid event on May 21 and publication of the papers in September 2021.

During the Tulsa Race Massacre, which occurred May 31–June 1, 1921, a white mob attacked residents, homes and businesses in the predominantly Black Greenwood district of Tulsa, Oklahoma. The event remains one of the worst incidents of racial violence in U.S. history and one of the least-known; news reports were largely squelched, despite the fact that hundreds of people were believed to have been killed and thousands left homeless.

May 21 @ 9:00 am - 5:00 pm

Virtual Event Free: Register Here

This one-day conference will feature the work of law professors, artists, poets, Black Wall Street business owners and historians.

Suzette Malveaux, provost professor of civil rights law at the University of Colorado School of Law, will provide the keynote address. For six years, Malveaux served as pro bono counsel to the plaintiffs in Alexander v. State of Oklahoma, a suit filed against Tulsa by victims of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre. As part of a team of attorneys, she represented the victims before the federal courts, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Organization of American States) and the U.S. House of Representatives.

Other featured law professors will include Keeva Terry of Howard University School of Law; andre cummings of the Bowen School of Law at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock; Amos Jones, executive director of the African American Trust for Historic Preservation; Angela Addae of the University of Oregon School of Law; and many others. Confirmed participants include Dwight Eaton, a descendant and owner of Black Wall Street Liquid Lounge; TU Professor Kristen Oertel, who will present a talk titled Black Indians, Red Dirt: A Brief History of African Americans in Indian and Oklahoma Territories, 1840–1907; and Professor DeWayne Dickens, who will present a talk titled Learning from Greenwood: When Voices Are Silenced.

 The United States invented the Rule of Law through the fragmentation of sovereignty among 51 sovereign authorities each with three branches of government. It further protects individual rights from state and federal infringement. This effectively created a legal system that could all state actors to account before law. While still imperfect in many important ways, Donald Trump took a sledgehammer to the Rule of Law particularly since January 6, 2021.

Today in America the rule of law faces severe challenges and may well face a total sunset. If so, the Supreme Court of the United States played a central role as accomplice. Most notably, today granted review (certiorari) on the following question: Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. That question in the abstract may hold academic interest, but the answer lies in many disputes in the future over decades or even centuries. 

Prof. Laurence Tribe, a legendary Constitutional Law scholar, explains the effect of this action:

The Supreme Court effectively gives Trump the potential to now escape any accountability for his role in the insurrection of January 6, 2021. This order puts partisan politics above the Rule of Law. A very dark day for America.

Today, the United States Supreme Court obliterated the Fourteenth Amendment, section 3, in Trump v. Anderson. The language of this section appears simple enough:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The Court held that: "the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3." More specifically, the Court held that only Congress may enforce the disqualification of section 3 and that states could only enforce the provision against state candidates for office and state officeholders. Otherwise the nation would face a risk of a patchwork of state outcomes. This, despite the fact that in 1868, shortly after the provision became law, the Governor of the State of Georgia disqualified a federal candidate for office. (See fn 3).

Further, if "only" Congress holds power to enforce section 3 then why did the drafters of the Amendment just insert an "only" in the section granting Congress power. The Court needs that "only" and it simply does not exist. Rather than apply the plain meaning the Court instead pretends there is an only when there is no such word. Section 5 plainly states: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." The Court did violence to the statute to protect Donald Trump.

Former Fourth Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig, a prominent conservative jurist explains:

The Supreme Court did leave one last avenue for accountability under law that the Biden Administration or DOJ Special Counsel Jack Smith could use to disqualify Trump. 18 U.S.C. section 2383 provides:

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

The Court cited this section with approval. It would provide a uniform federal solution. And, it arises from an exercise of Congressional power. Even this Court (which works overtime to protect Trump) would uphold such an action. 

Why did Jack Smith (or Attorney General Merrick Garland before him) fail to use this section against the obvious insurrectionist Donald Trump? Or, alternatively, why not bring such an action tomorrow morning? Colorado would provide a form indictment and a trial map, complete with comprehensive evidence?

So, the Court today shifted the spotlight to DOJ with today's SCOTUS ruling. Agreement or disagreement with the Court's opinion no longer matters. Many excellent arguments support the use of section 3 in precisely the manner of Colorado. All moot.

Why did DOJ fail (and continue to fail) to seek disqualification through a criminal action a criminal action? 

The most disturbing and vivid reality of all of this: law failed to hold Trump to account as an oath breaking insurrectionist despite many available pathways.

 

 

 I just published a new law review article with the Seattle University Law Review entitled: Students for Fair Admissions: Affirming Affirmative Action and Shapeshifting Towards Cognitive Diversity? The article can be downloaded here: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sulr/vol47/iss4/7/. Here is the abstract:

The Roberts Court holds a well-earned reputation for overturning Supreme Court precedent regardless of the long-standing nature of the case. The Roberts Court knows how to overrule precedent. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), the Court’s majority opinion never intimates that it overrules Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court’s leading opinion permitting race-based affirmative action in college admissions. Instead, the Roberts Court applied Grutter as authoritative to hold certain affirmative action programs entailing racial preferences violative of the Constitution. These programs did not provide an end point, nor did they require assessment, review, periodic expiration, or revision for greater institutional efficacy, including possible race-neutral alternatives. The programs also failed to break down stereotypes through the introduction of a critical mass to empower diverse voices. The programs thereby resembled prohibited quotas or racial balancing. As such, the programs at issue violated Grutter, which still governs race-based affirmative action in college admissions. More importantly, the Roberts court paved the way for more expansive diversity-based admissions programs by permitting institutions to value individual racial experiences, which authentically further an institution’s mission and interests. After SFFA, the use of race as a factor could well face time limits. Contrastingly, individualized racial experiences may benefit college applicants at institutions that embrace diversity in an authentic way without facing any time limitation. Further, institutions with distinct missions may value diversity in a race-conscious way but without any racial preference. In sum, the Roberts Court guides the use of race in college admissions toward a race-neutral, diversity-based paradigm such that institutions may still unlock the empirically proven benefits of cultural diversity with only de minimus interference from the courts. This approach rests upon a powerful policy basis that leads to superior innovation, macroeconomic outcomes, social cohesion and, therefore, superior national security for the United States. This approach thus could support a powerful interest convergence.

The article shows that Supreme Court did not overrule its prior affirmative action precedents, and in fact paved the way for universities to embrace cultural and cognitive diversity to enrich their educational missions. This is important because the case has been widely misconstrued.

My next article will extend the Court's holding to corporate DEI efforts and demonstrate that such efforts are not only remain lawful but also essential to rational human resources management.

Currently, the nation and perhaps the world struggles with the recent jury verdict against Donald Trump finding him guilty of 34 felony counts. Trump claims that the verdict proves Joe Biden uses the criminal justice system as a political tool intended to defeat his political opponents, in this case him. On the other hand, many take the position that the case demonstrates the triumph of the rule of law because it proves that even the most privileged and powerful of citizens must ultimately reckon with legal accountability. I opt for the conclusion that the case exemplifies a healthy rule of law operating to impose reasonable and predictable accountability and consequences for even the most powerful governing elites in American today for the following six reasons.

First, and foremost, the guilty verdict reflects the unanimous conclusion of 12 jurors, after careful deliberation and judicial instruction, empaneled pursuant to pre-announced New York Law. Donald Trump, like all criminal defendants, held the power to refuse a limited number of jurors without cause and to move to strike jurors for cause. The jurors hailed from Trump's former home state and the headquarters of the Trump Organization—New York. It is noteworthy that not a single juror dissented from the verdict and that they reached the verdict without any judicial cajoling through, for example, an Allen charge. The jury questioned the evidence and the instructions to assure they acted properly. They deliberated about 12 hours after spending five weeks listening to witness testimony and reviewing other evidence including extensive documents. Trump's high-powered legal team exercised their right to cross-examine witnesses, explain away evidence and submit their own exculpatory evidence. Despite these rights, the best legal team money could buy failed to raise any reasonable doubt with even one juror, on even one count, regarding Trump’s guilt.

Second, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg holds a well-earned reputation as a professional prosecutor who gets the job done and gets it done professionally. Recall that Bragg endured severe criticism for declining to prosecute Trump for tax fraud in 2022, prompting two prosecutors to resign. Bragg apparently found the case against Trump too risky to warrant pursuit. Instead, he meticulously built this case which proved bullet-proof. Bragg won his office through an election of local voters and does not work for Joe Biden or even the federal government. The man holds total legal independence from the Biden Administration and proved himself as a non-partisan prosecutor by letting Trump walk on other fraud charges in 2022. The fact that he sought a Grand Jury indictment against Trump on this case suggests that there was probable cause that Trump committed the crimes—a fact that the jury's verdict fully vindicates.

Third, Justice Juan Merchan presided over the entire Trump matter with appropriate judicial restraint. Given Trump’s contemptuous misconduct and constant threats of violence against the judge, his family, his staff and the jury, Merchan certainly held the power to imprison Trump for contempt. He held his fire and allowed the jury to do its job. Despite Fox “News” reports to the contrary, the evidence suggests the Judge ruled on objections and other procedural matters with judicious wisdom. He righteously rejected Trump’s efforts to dismiss the charges, as proven by the unanimous jury verdict on all counts. Again, Merchan, a New York state judge, holds total legal independence from the Biden Administration and, Trump and his team produced zero evidence that Biden even attempted to influence Merchan.

Fourth, Trump himself knew he faced an uphill battle once he decided not to testify and take the stand to declare his innocence. Due to Trump’s decision the jury never heard Trump deny the charges, claim innocence or explain the mountain of evidence against him in the form of witnesses, key documents, or the tape-recording directing Cohen to pay Daniels by check. In fact, there was no defense theory of the case. Trump would not exude credibility as a witness due to his history of fraud, and he would risk a finding of perjury if he claimed innocence under oath or if he simply made-up stories on the stand. In any event, many defendants face challenges testifying on their own behalf, but Trump made that call, not Joe Biden.

Fifth, after reviewing the jury instructions, I saw no error, in that the instructions fairly reflect governing law in New York. While some complain reasonably that the jury was not required to identify the precise crime that transforms misdemeanor falsification of records into a felony, there is Supreme Court authority in support of this. Juries typically do not need to identify with particularity (nor even agree upon a particular predicate crime) a predicate crime to a felony charge; here the crime Trump intended to further with false business records. The US Supreme Court might well make up some means of saving Donald Trump (see Trump v. United States and Trump v. Anderson). Justice Merchan, however, cannot read the minds of the conservative Court majority and it is not his job to predict ways the Supreme Court can throw lifelines to former President Trump. Merchan’s instructions reflect the law today and that is the goal of jury instructions, not to craft new innovations to save Trump.

Sixth, all the cries of conspiracy theory and a rigged justice system from Trump and his minions lack any evidentiary foundation. They produced zero evidence that Joe Biden masterminded this entire prosecution. The claim is facially absurd. Biden did not set up Trumps illicit and adulterous liaisons, Trump did. Biden did not meet with David Pecker to set up a scheme to hide Trump’s prior bad acts in the run-up to election 2016. Trump signed the checks reimbursing Cohen the hush money paid to Trump’s co-adulterers. Trump can only blame Trump for his 34 felony convictions.

In light of the above, I conclude that Donald Trump enjoyed all the due process the US Constitution accords criminal defendants. Of course, with his billions, Trump can afford the very best lawyers which most defendants cannot. As former President, Trump enjoys the right to argue before many justices he appointed which most defendants do not. From a rule of law perspective the case proves that even the richest and most politically powerful must answer for their crimes.

 On March 11, 2024, Donald Trump claimed that cutting Social Security and Medicare could help him cut the national debt tremendously. (See video above). On March 22, 2024, the House GOP announced cuts including a plan to raise the retirement age. This was the second straight year that the House GOP proposed a budget with deep Social Security and Medicare cuts. Trump started promising cuts to Social Security and Medicare in his second term before some audiences as early as January of 2020.  At a Fox News Town Hall in March of 2020, again promised to cut Social Security and Medicare.

All of this talk of cuts forms the prelude to last Thursday's debate which included a question about cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Biden gave a straight-forward answer saying that no cuts are necessary if we raise the Social Security tax to the same level for all. Currently, those making high incomes pay much lower rates than those making low incomes. As President Biden explained at the debate:

Right now, everybody making under $170,000 pays 6 percent of their income, of their paycheck, every single time they get a paycheck, [But] millionaires pay 1 percent – 1 percent. So . . . I would not raise the cost of Social Security for anybody under $400,000. After that, I begin to make the wealthy begin to pay their fair share, by increasing from 1 percent beyond, to be able to guarantee the program for life.

That provides a sensible and efficient means of securing Social Security. And, Biden never varies from that position.

Trump on the other hand, takes different positions with different audiences and covers the full spectrum of options. According to NBC News:

An NBC News examination found that Trump's views have zigzagged over the years — from calling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” in 2000 to endorsing then-Rep. Paul Ryan’s plans to restructure Medicare in 2012 to positioning himself as the protector of those programs in 2016 to taking aim at some retirement spending in his White House budgets (which never became law).

Essentially we know Trump is lying because of his radically divergent positions over time. In fact, in 2016 he promised to preserve Social Security and Medicare, and then in his budgets he proposed cuts.

 In recent months, Trump opened the way for Social Security and Medicare cuts and refuses to disclaim the GOP plan to cut those programs as, shown above. Which brings us to the his debate comments in response to a question about entitlement cuts. While Biden gave a simple and clear statement of how he intends to save Social Security and Medicare, Trump attacked Biden's honesty and switched the topic to immigration, Russia, Ukraine, a mysterious laptop, the VA, and luxury hotels. Trump was incoherent. Remarkably, he never addressed his recent comments about Social Security and Medicare cuts, nor the GOP plan to cut Social Security and Medicare. Trump provided no explanation of his prior budget proposals including Social Security and Medicare cuts.  As stated in the Washington Post: "Protecting Social Security . . . was also a major theme of Trump’s 2016 campaign. His avowed stance, however, is at odds with Trump’s own record as president: Each of his White House budget proposals included cuts to Social Security and Medicare programs."

Trump has staked out so many positions on Social Security that no matter what he says he lies. The only thing we know for sure about Trump and entitlements is that despite campaign promises to the contrary he included Social Security and Medicare cuts in each of his annual budget proposals as President. Given the GOP commitment to cutting Social Security and Medicare a vote for any GOP candidate is a vote to slash your Social Security and Medicare benefits by about 30 percent. If Trump gets elected the GOP will have a clear path to gutting Social Security and Medicare as he promised to do in a second term in 2020, and regardless of any lies or gibberish he feeds the voters today. 

Donald Trump's longest serving and hand-picked Chief of Staff, Four Star Marine General John Kelley, recently confirmed that Trump called those serving in the military "suckers" and those making the ultimate sacrifice for our nation and our freedom "losers." These comments now confirmed through numerous sources prove Trump's unfitness for office. Some background:

 On August 27, 2024, Special Prosecutor Jack Smith announced a Superseding Indictment Against Donald Trump arising from Trump's misconduct on January 6, 2021. The January 6 Insurrection already led to over 1400 indictments, 950 convictions, and landed over 600 protestors in jail. The Superseding Indictment seeks to restate the crimes alleged against former President Trump in light of the Supreme Court's novel and unprecedented decision in United States v. Trump granting Presidents a new-fangled immunity for official acts. In sum, according to the outstanding website January 6: And Why  it Matters:

While the core of the case remains unchanged with the four original charges intact, the revised indictment refines the scope of the accusations. Notably, it excludes certain claims, such as those involving attempts to use the Justice Department to support Trump’s false election fraud allegations.

This case will not go away absent an order to Jack Smith that he desist from prosecution. That will not happen unless Donald Trump assumes the Presidency. On the other hand, Trump will likely move to dismiss the Superseding Indictment and the trial judge could well partially grant that motion. Whatever remains of this case will very likely go to trial well after election day on November 5, 2024, and even if a jury convicts Trump litigation will continue about the scope of Presidential immunity leading to further Supreme Court review.

But what about the other criminal cases against Donald Trump?

In one criminal action brought in  Florida federal court, Special Counsel Jack Smith filed an appeal with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals of the dismissal of all charges relating to Trump's alleged pilfering and mishandling of government documents including classified documents. Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Smith's appointment as Special Prosecutor did not comply with law.  Special Counsel Smith just filed an appellate brief and Trump will file a response; but, this appeal will not conclude before the election and any decision will then face Supreme Court review. Consequently, the election could well decide this matter instead of a jury.

In another criminal action in New York state court, a jury Trump helped pick from his native state, unanimously found Trump guilty of all 34 felony counts alleged against him. Trump's guilt rested on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. According to Politico:

On May 30, 2024, Trump became the first U.S. president to become a convicted felon. After a six-week trial . . . he was found guilty of falsifying business records in connection with a payoff to Stormy Daniels, a porn star who claimed she had a sexual encounter with him. By buying Daniels’ silence, the payoff avoided a possible sex scandal in the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign. Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal attorney and “fixer” at the time, sent the $130,000 hush-money payment to Daniels in October 2016, and then, while Trump was president, he reimbursed Cohen in a series of installments processed by Trump’s company. A unamimous 12-person jury found that Trump fraudulently disguised those installments as corporate legal expenses in violation of New York law.

In short, Trump defrauded voters in election 2016 by covering up his adulterous affair with a porn star. 

Currently, Judge Juan Merchan will rule on the impact of the Supreme Court's new-fangled immunity defense on September 16, 2024, and will sentence Trump for these felony convictions for these 34 felony convictions on September 18, 2024. Experts disagree on the likelihood of prison for these felonies.

Trump also faces felony charges in Georgia for alleged criminal efforts to change the outcome of election 2020 in Georgia. As stated at Politico:

Trump’s efforts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election were perhaps most aggressive in the state of Georgia. Multiple recounts confirmed that Joe Biden narrowly prevailed in the race for the state’s 16 electoral votes. But Trump and his allies spread lies about voter fraud, urged Georgia officials and state lawmakers to reverse Biden’s win and plotted to send fake electors to Washington. On Jan. 2, 2021, Trump called Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, and urged him to “find” 11,780 votes — the number needed to overcome Biden’s victory. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis charged Trump and 18 of his allies for these efforts, alleging a wide-ranging criminal enterprise.

Essentially Trump refused to accept the reality of his defeat in Georgia and allegedly resorted to criminal measures to change the outcome. Trump filed an appeal arguing that District Attorney Fani Willis should be removed due to a a romantic relationship with a special prosecutor. Willis' team filed an appeal of a dismissal order of six counts of the indictment. Trump also filed a motion asserting Presidential Immunity. Consequently, this criminal action is hopelessly stalled and will not be resolved for years.

The above summary of the criminal actions pending against Trump suggests the following:

1)    Somewhere American law went wrong. The people no long hold sufficient confidence in the fairness and impartiality of our system of justice. Otherwise, Trump supporters would not so readily fall prey to the Big Lie that all these criminal proceedings arise from a vast Democratic and deep state conspiracy to get Trump. No evidence supports this Big Lie. We need to rebuild confidence in the American criminal justice system.

2)    The rule of law in America failed to hold President Trump accountable for the wrongdoing in connection with contesting the election of 2020, and especially the Insurrection of January 6, 2020. Many others sit in jail. Still more pleaded guilty. There is little doubt Trump led those efforts. He did so openly on television, and in recorded phone calls. Yet, Trump suffered no adverse legal consequences for his role. This failure of the rule of law must lead to reform. Citizens must view criminal justice as fair and non-partisan. It also needs to apply swiftly, even to the rich and powerful.

3)    We need enhanced legal education in primary and secondary schools as well as at the college level. The judicial power in the US is highly fragmented. The split starts with 51 differing sovereigns each with a largely independent judicial power. Yet, many apparently believe that Joe Biden or the Democratic Party holds the ability to influence the independent judicial branch across jurisdictions. This, despite a complete lack of evidence of any improper influence. We should certainly reinforce the independence of the judicial power while simultaneously increasing transparency and accountability. At the same time citizens require more education regarding the structure and protections already in place to maintain a fair and non-partisan criminal justice system.

4)    A Trump victory at the polls will destroy the quest for a fair and non-partisan criminal justice for decades to come, as he has promised to eliminate independence in criminal enforcement at the federal level and to use the system to exact retribution and revenge upon his political opponents. 

No campaign promise will impose more mass oppression than the zero due process mass round-ups that Donald Trump touts at every rally. 

 Donald Trump promises to sign an Executive Order on day one of his new term abolishing Birthright Citizenship. This will trigger litigation thar promises to land in Trump's Supreme Court for final adjudication, Assuming Trump prevails there, the GOP already introduced a Bill to abolish Birthright Citizenship legislatively. JD Vance co-sponsored that Bill. This amounts to an historically unprecedented assault on virtually every American's Citizenship. 

Amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify that no child is eligible for birthright citizenship if their parents are unlawfully present in the United States, present in the U.S. for diplomatic purposes, or engaged in a hostile operation against the U.S.

Notably, the Act proposed by Vance includes no limitation on this "clarification" of who enjoys citizenship and who does not. The Act includes no limitation on retroactive effect and lacks any express limitation providing for prospective impact only. The Constitution only proscribes retroactive criminal sanctions The intent of the Act is to correct errors in prior interpretations of the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

More broadly, the GOP assault on virtually everyone's citizenship seeks to maximize the power of the next Trump Administration to round-up citizens, as discussed in my prior blog post. As such, this amounts to the greatest power-grab of rights over American citizens in history.

 

 On September 17, 1787, upon exiting the final session of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin told a bystander that the Founders had established “A republic, if you can keep it.” In my youth this statement made little sense because I assumed humans would always want democratic self-governance instead of dictatorship. Humans will always value freedom including self-governance over oppression.

Today, our Constitutional Republic faces grave dangers and unprecedented political challenges that prove Franklin’s point. The Constitution requires constant citizen vigilance to assure that as political winds blow from whatever direction our Constitution endures to assure the freedom and self-governance of successive generations of Americans. Citizens must certainly value the freedom of all over petty partisan advantage.

Today that certainty wavers, and I understand more than ever how dictatorships and autocracies take root and how republics and democracies fail. We now face an epic election on November 5. The presidential candidates run neck and neck. Our Constitutional Republic hangs in the balance. The manifest threats include:

1)    1.   One candidate openly called for the “termination” of the Constitution merely so that he could maintain his grip on power, legally or not.

2)    2.   That candidate previously gathered an angry mob, on January 6, 2021, and told them to “fight like hell” to stop the Constitutional certification of election 2020. That mob subsequently brutalized the Capitol Police and vandalized the Capitol all in an effort to overturn a Constitutional election at his behest. Today, he calls those convicted of criminal misconduct on January 6, “unbelievable patriots”, and he promises to pardon them all.

3)    3.    He openly ridicules and defames the integrity of our Constitutional elections and attacks American elections as “rigged” and “fraudulent” without any evidence. Over 60 courts of law rejected these lies, including rulings by judges he appointed. Today, he leads an effort undermine the certainty of our elections, and use violence and chaos to sow mistrust of democracy in America.

4)     4.   A jury he helped pick, from his native state, found him unanimously guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of 34 felony counts of illegally influencing election 2016 through hush money payments to a porn star to cover up an adulterous affair.

5)      5.  He insults our military heroes willing to die for our Constitution and the hard-won freedoms it secures, calling them “losers” and “suckers” according to, among others, his own handpicked and longest serving Chief of Staff, General John Kelly.

6)     6.   He courts the favor and affection of brutal dictators. He leaked classified intel to one and “fell in love” with another who now menaces virtually our entire nation with nuclear weapons.

7)    7.    He faces criminal charges that he mishandled classified documents, refused to return documents belonging to the United States and obstructed justice.

8)    8. He openly promises to be a dictator on Day One. This promise entails massive Constitutional violations.

9)     9.  He promises “bloody” violence if he should prevail and implement his unconstitutional proposal for “mass deportations” with no due process and massive violations of human rights.

10  10.  Even today, he refuses to commit to the peaceful transition of power. He persistently refuses to ever concede defeat.

No President nor candidate for the White House ever committed any single one of these offenses against the Constitution. Each offense renders a person unfit for the Presidency.

Combined, these offenses make Donald Trump incapable of credibly taking and adhering to his oath of office to defend the Constitution. This inability to take the oath of office usually plays no role in an election. Today it assumes the utmost importance. Trump attacks our Constitution and seeks unbridled power. Donald Trump’s extreme embrace of fascism complete with Big Lies, scapegoating and hatred renders him the most unfit candidate in history. 

 

No President nor nominee in US history so openly and brazenly pursued a fascist dictatorship like Donald Trump does today. In fact, many of Trump's own handpicked senior advisers from his first term as President issue urgent warnings today about Trump's drive to dictatorship. For example:

1)    TRUMP'S LONGEST SERVING CHIEF OF STAFF MARINE GENERAL JOHN KELLY

John Kelly enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1970, and was discharged as a sergeant in 1972. Following college graduation in 1976, he returned to the Marines as an infantry officer. Kelly rose to Brigadier General and served in Iraq for the better part of 2 years. Kelly deployed again to Iraq in 2008 after promotion to Major General. Ultimately, in his last military post, from 2012 to 2016 he served as a four-star general leading the United States Southern Command, the unified combatant command responsible for American military operations in Central America, South America, and the Caribbean.

President Trump appointed Kelly the Secretary of Homeland Security in 2017. Trump promoted Kelly to Chief of Staff on July 31, 2017. At the time, Trump called Kelly a "great American" who has "done a spectacular job at Homeland Security" and "been a true star of my administration."

The New York Times published an interview with Kelly, on Oct. 22, 2024, available here. According to General Kelly: “Certainly the former president is in the far-right area, he’s certainly an authoritarian, admires people who are dictators — he has said that. So he certainly falls into the general definition of fascist. . . . He certainly prefers the dictator approach to government.” Further, the General said that "a very big surprise for him was that we were — those of us who were former generals and certainly people still on active duty — that the commitment, the loyalty was to the Constitution, without question, without second thought. That was a big surprise to him that the generals were not loyal to the boss, in this case him.” Trump apparently failed middle school history.

2)      TRUMP'S HANDPICKED CHAIR OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF MARK MILLEY

Four star General Mark Milley became the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on September 30, 2019, and served as the nation's highest ranking military officer for four years until September of 2023.  Milley first became a commissioned officer in 1980 after graduating from Princeton University. As chairman, General Milley acted as the principal military advisor to the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council.

When Milley took his oath as Chair, Donald Trump said of his appointee: "In his new role as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Milley will serve as my top military advisor. I have absolute confidence that he will fulfill his duty with the same brilliance and fortitude he has shown throughout his long and very distinguished career."

Today the retired General says of Trump: “He is the most dangerous person ever. [N]ow I realize he’s a total fascist. He is now the most dangerous person to this country, a fascist to the core.” In his retirement speech Milley stated: "“We don’t take an oath to a king, or queen, or tyrant or a dictator, and we don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator. We don’t take an oath to an individual. We take an oath to the Constitution, and we take an oath to the idea that is America, and we’re willing to die to protect it.”

3)    13 FORMER TRUMP OFFICIALS IN SUPPORT OF THE GENERALS

In the wake of comments from General Kelly (and fully consistent with the comments of General Milley), 13 Trump appointees wrote a letter of support stating:

Donald Trump's disdain for the American military and admiration for dictators like Hitler is rooted in his desire for absolute, unchecked power. This is a man who threw his own Vice President – Mike Pence – at a violent mob in a desperate bid to hold on to power. When Donald Trump says he wants to be a "dictator" on "day one" and deploy the military against American citizens he deems “the enemy from within"--he means it. . . . We did not take the decision to come forward lightly. We are all lifelong Republicans who served our country. However, there are moments in history where it becomes necessary to put country over party. This is one of those moments.

All of these Trump Administration appointees, including many serving in senior positions, worked day-to-day with Trump and witnessed first hand how he governs and how he seeks to accumulate dictatorial powers.

4)     FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE JAMES MATTIS

Four star Marine General James Mattis served as Trump's first handpicked Secretary of Defense, from Trump's inauguration through early 2019. Mattis previously served as a Marine officer starting in 1971, and saw combat in Operation Dessert Storm, Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

General Mattis posits that Donald Trump is unfit because he places himself above the Constitution. More specifically, Mattis issued a statement after the J6 insurrection that said:

Today’s violent assault on our Capitol, an effort to subjugate American democracy by mob rule, was fomented by Mr. Trump. His use of the Presidency to destroy trust in our election and to poison our respect for fellow citizens has been enabled by pseudo political leaders whose names will live in infamy as profiles in cowardice. Our Constitution and our Republic will overcome this stain and We the People will come together again in our never-ending effort to form a more perfect Union, while Mr. Trump will deservedly be left a man without a country.

Mattis previously levelled serious objections to Trump's fitness as President due to his misconduct in the summer of 2020, in the wake of protests triggered by the police murder of George Floyd. He stated:

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. 

5)    FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE MARK ESPER 

After graduating from West Point, Mark Esper joined the United States Army and served during the 1990-91 Gulf War as an officer with the 101st Airborne Division. Former President Trump appointed him as the Secretary of Defense and he assumed office on July 19, 2019.

When asked about the former Generals assertions that Trump seeks to impose a dictatorship Esper stated: "It's hard to say that he doesn't. . . .he certainly has those inclinations. And I think it's something we should be wary about." Esper suggests voters look up the term "fascism" and determine on their own if Trump fits the bill. He also praised the Generals for raising the issue and gave them high marks for integrity and honesty.

The Esper interview with CNN is available here.

6)   FORMER VICE PRESIDENT PENCE

In an extraordinary development, Vice President Mike Pence refuses to endorse Donald Trump for President in election 2024. Pence stated that Trump should never sit in the Oval Office again because Trump put himself and his hold on power above the Constitution. The video above explains his position best.

CONCLUSION

The 18 patriots quoted above all say in unison that Donald Trump cannot rule our country again because he cannot adhere to the Constitution. Instead he will seek extra-Constitutional power and try to rule as a dictator. Trump himself promises to rule as a dictator on Day 1. These warnings come from life-long conservatives and from Trump's hand picked officials at the most senior levels of the Trump Administration. They saw Trump at work in the Oval Office daily--they know much more than us. They risk their lives and the lives of their family. We must heed these unprecedented warnings and take Trump at his word. The Constitution today demands that we all follow the distinguished leaders above and act courageously to protect our Great Constitutional Republic. History will judge us on this most important issue. We must not elect a dictator who promises to "terminate" the Constitution for power.

Former SFS Music Director (1985-1995) Herbert Blomstedt conducts Beethoven and Mendelssohn.

MTT conducts Mackey and Tchaikovsky; Gil Shaham plays Prokofiev.

MTT conducts Ravel and Sibelius; violinist Christian Tetzlaff plays Mozart.

James Gaffigan guest conducts Wagner, Mozart and Barber; pianist Hélène Grimaud plays Beethoven.

Marek Janowski guest conducts Mendelssohn, Bruch and Wagner.

Michael Tilson Thomas conducts Mahler's 7th Symphony.

Michael Tilson Thomas conducts and all-Stravinsky program featuring violinist Leonidas Kavakos.

A recent spate of Xcel power outages across metro Denver has prompted the Colorado Public Utilities Commission to consider opening an investigation.

The Colorado Public Utilities Commission is looking into recent power outages reported by Xcel Energy customers.

For people living near a gasoline storage facility in Commerce City, the company’s decision to cancel its expansion near an elementary school was an environmental victory.

Most of the revisions to the permit for Suncor’s Plant 2 were highly technical, and none change the amount of pollution Suncor is allowed to send into the air.

Dan Haley is stepping down as CEO and president of the trade association after nine years.

Denver-based CoreSite plans to build a new data center in the Elyria Swansea neighborhood to provide computing services to companies in the metro area and beyond.

A storm of complaints from the public about Xcel power outages led Colorado's Public Utilities Commission to act.

Xcel Energy's proposal to replace the last of its coal-fired power includes some natural gas, which has meet resistance from critics.

Xcel Energy plans to spend $45 billion on capital investments in the next five years with about $22 billion of that earmarked for Colorado as the utility prepares for what it calls a historic shift in energy demand.

Enerplus Corp. merged with Chord Energy Corp. earlier this year in $11 billion deal.

Retired race car driver Richard Berry hopes the third time’s the charm after listing his custom-designed Evergreen mansion on 75 acres for $19 million.

Had Denver matched the regional average gain, it would have seen an additional $646 million more in taxable sales revenues, the report estimates.

Now that Lutheran Hospital has moved from its 100-acre campus in Wheat Ridge to the new Lutheran Medical Center at Interstate 70 and 40th Avenue, Wheat Ridge has a unique opportunity to develop the area and better serve the community. On Tuesday, voters will decide whether to approve an amended charter to increase the height […]

It is the first law office in Colorado for Vinson & Elkins.

Metro Denver's housing market heated up instead of cooling down last month as buyers defied expectations they would take a wait-and-see approach until the election was over.

A South Florida investor and local developer are teaming up to convert an extended-stay hotel in Denver into apartments. The hotel closed in tandem with the real estate last week.

Despite concerns buyers would delay home purchases until after the election, metro Denver’s housing market sizzled in October. That activity bucks a national trend. A Redfin survey shows that 23% of first-time buyers plan to wait until after the election to purchase, citing economic uncertainty, potential rate cuts, and candidate policy impacts. According to the […]

Colorado hospitals, nursing homes and other health care facilities would be required to come up with plans to reduce violence against their staffs under a bill in the legislature that also would require stronger responses to incidents.

The allegations in the ICU come as the Aurora VA has been roiled by controversy in recent months. When clinicians do raise concerns to management, they say they're met with admonition and retaliation.

With fewer people moving across state lines, and population growth slowing, places within Colorado will have to compete harder with each other to attract new residents.