U.S. Senator Cory Booker – dwkcommentaries

Biden Administration’s New Restrictions on U.S. Asylum Law Being Challenged in Federal Courts

This year has seen many developments regarding the Biden Administration’s attempts to cope with the large numbers of migrants illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. Here is a review of some of those developments.

Biden’s New Asylum Regulation[1]

On February 21, the Biden Administration announced a proposed rule that would require rapid deportation of an immigrant at the U.S. border who had failed to request protection from another country while en route to the U.S. or who had not previously notified the U.S. via a mobile app of a plan to seek asylum in the U.S. or who had applied for the new U.S. humanitarian parole programs for certain countries (Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela). This rule was scheduled to take effect will take effect on May 11, with the expected termination that day of Title 42 which allowed the U.S. to swiftly expel migrants at the U.S. border.

This announcement stated that the new rule would “incentivize the use of new and existing lawful processes and disincentivize dangerous border crossings, by placing a new condition on asylum eligibility for those who fail to do so. These steps are being taken in response to the unprecedented western hemispheric migration challenges – the greatest displacement of people since World War II – and the absence of congressional action to update a very broken, outdated immigration system.”

DHS Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas stated, “We are a nation of immigrants, and we are a nation of laws. We are strengthening the availability of legal, orderly pathways for migrants to come to the United States, at the same time proposing new consequences on those who fail to use processes made available to them by the United States and its regional partners. As we have seen time and time again, individuals who are provided a safe, orderly, and lawful path to the United States are less likely to risk their lives traversing thousands of miles in the hands of ruthless smugglers, only to arrive at our southern border and face the legal consequences of unlawful entry.”

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland added the following: “The Department of Justice is responsible for administering the Nation’s immigration courts and ensuring that claims are adjudicated expeditiously, fairly, and consistent with due process. This proposed rule will establish temporary rules concerning asylum eligibility in those proceedings when the Title 42 order is lifted. We look forward to reviewing the public’s comments on this proposed rule.”

The Administration said that without this new rule, immigration at the U.S. border would “increase significantly, to a level that risks undermining the … continued ability to safely, effectively and humanely enforce and administer U.S. immigration law.”

On May 12, 2023, these new restrictions on applications for asylum under U.S. law went into effect. Under these new restrictions aliens were disqualified for making such applications if they had crossed into the U.S. without either securing an appointment for an official U.S. interview at an official port of entry or without seeking legal protection in another country along their way to the U.S.

Reactions to U.S. New Asylum Rules[2]

Prior to this new rule, U.S. border patrol officials were daily encountering about 7,500 migrants trying to cross the U.S. border illegally. Since then the numbers have declined to about 3,000 per day, still historically high but dramatically lower than the 7,500.

There is abundant evidence that migrants have been applying for asylum in record numbers under this new rule and now are in long lines, taking several years, for their cases to be heard in Immigration courts. (At the end of fiscal 2022, there were nearly 1.6 million pending asylum applications.) Moreover, other migrants without legal support, are likely to miss the 12 month deadline for submitting the complicated application) and fall into the more perilous category of the undocumented.

In a joint statement, Democratic Sens. Bob Menendez (N.J.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Ben Ray Luján (N.M.) and Alex Padilla (Calif.) called on the administration to drop the proposed rule. “We are deeply disappointed that the administration has chosen to move forward with publishing this proposed rule, which only perpetuates the harmful myth that asylum seekers are a threat to this nation. In reality, they are pursuing a legal pathway in the United States.”

A similar reaction came from leading Democrat House members (Rep. Jerrold Nadler and Pramila Jayapal). In their joint statement, they expressed “deep disappointment” with the newly proposed rule and stated, “The ability to seek asylum is a bedrock principle protected by federal law and should never be violated. We should not be restricting legal pathways to enter the United States, we should be expanding them.”

Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, said they applaud the expanded pathways for those four countries announced in January but question where that leaves migrants from other countries. She says it favors people with resources who can afford the necessary requirements of finding a financial sponsor and buying a plane ticket to the U.S. And some people are so at risk, they simply cannot wait in their country for a humanitarian parole slot. Critics have also highlighted technological problems with the app.”

The Federation for American Immigration Reform said that the rule isn’t designed to halt migrants as much as make the process more orderly: “In other words, the real objective is not to end large-scale asylum abuse, but rather to get them through the next election cycle.”

Justice Action Center’s counsel, Jane Bentrott, said the proposed rule “would send asylum seekers back to danger, separate families, and cost lives, as human rights advocates have been asserting for weeks. It is in direct contravention of President Biden’s campaign promises to reverse Trump’s racist, xenophobic immigration policies, and give all folks seeking safety a fair shot at asylum.”

Lindsay Toczylowski, the executive director of Immigrant Defenders Law Center in California, criticized the inept operations of the government’s online system for scheduling an asylum application interview. “It’s almost like a lottery. You have to win a ticket to be able to seek protection in the U.S.”

An ACLU attorney, Lee Gelernt, who successfully challenged similar efforts by the Trump Administration, said that Biden’s new proposed rules had the same legal flaws as the Trump rules and that the ACLU would sue to block the latest move.

Challenge to New Asylum Regulations in U.S. District Court[3]

A lawsuit challenging the new asylum rule was filed with the U.S. District Court for Northern California. The U.S. Government obviously opposed this lawsuit and submitted an affidavit by Blas Nuñez-Neto, assistant secretary of homeland security for border and immigration policy, that described the real-world alternatives to the new rule: Customs and Border Patrol “facilities will be overcrowded once again, placing the noncitizens in our custody and the front-line personnel who care for them at risk.” Border communities “will once again receive large scale releases of noncitizens that will overwhelm their ability to coordinate safe temporary shelter and quick onward transportation.” And interior cities such as New York “will, once again, see their systems strained.”

Therefore, the U.S. Government argued that the Biden plan is necessary to the government’s “continued ability to safely, effectively, and humanely enforce and administer U.S. immigration law, including the asylum system.”

Nevertheless, on July 25, 2023, Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for Northern California held that these new restrictions were “both substantively and procedurally invalid.” The Judge said, “The court concludes that the rule is contrary to law because it presumes ineligible for asylum noncitizens who enter between ports of entry, using a manner of entry that Congress expressly intended should not affect access to asylum.”

The judge, however, “immediately stayed his decision for 14 days, leaving the asylum policy in place while the federal government appealed the decision.”

An ACLU attorney for the plaintiffs said this ruling “is a victory, but each day the Biden administration prolongs the fight over its illegal ban, many people fleeing persecution and seeking safe harbor for their families are instead left in grave danger.”

According to the Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro N. Mayorkas, however, “the administration strongly disagreed with the decision. With the policy still in place while the decision is appealed, he added, migrants who did not follow the current rule would face stiff consequences.” This result “does not limit our ability to deliver consequences for unlawful entry,” including prompt removal, a future bar on admission and potential criminal prosecution.”

Appeal About Asylum Rules in Court of Appeals[4]

The U.S. Government took an immediate appeal from Judge Tigar’s decision, and on August 3, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided, 2 to 1, that the pause or stay of the District Court’s decision invalidating the Biden Administration’s new asylum restrictions should continue for as long as it takes the appellate court to rule on the case. The appellate court also stated that it would “expedite its consideration of the government’s appeal and said that briefs from both sides would be due by the end of September at the latest. A hearing will follow.”

The two judges in the majority—William A. Fletcher and Richard A. Paez—did not explain their reasoning.

However, the dissenting judge, Lawrence Van Dyke, said that the majority judges did not give the Trump Administration the same deference when the court invalidated asylum restrictions, which were practically the same as those adopted by the Biden Administration. Van Dyke more colorfully said that Biden’s asylum restrictions were so similar to the Trump administration’s that it looks like they “got together, had a baby, and then dolled it up in a stylish modern outfit, complete with a phone app.”

A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, Erin Heeter, responded to this appellate ruling. She said, “We will continue to apply the rule and immigration consequences for those who do not have a lawful basis to remain in the United States. The rule has significantly reduced irregular migration, and since its implementation on May 12 we have removed more than 85,000 individuals. We encourage migrants to ignore the lies of smugglers and use lawful, safe and orderly pathways.”

Katrina Eiland, the ACLU lawyer who argued the case for the plaintiffs, had a different reaction. She said, “We are confident that we will prevail when the court has a full opportunity to consider the claims. We are pleased the court placed the appeal on an expedited schedule so that it can be decided quickly, because each day the Biden administration prolongs its efforts to preserve its illegal ban, people fleeing grave danger are put in harm’s way.”

Conclusion

We all now await the parties’ appellate briefs and oral arguments followed by the Court of Appeals decision and then potential further proceedings in that court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

===========================

[1] Biden Administration Announces Proposed Restrictions on Asylum Applications, dwkcommentaries.com (Feb. 27, 2023). h

[2] Meko & Vitchis, New Migrants Have a Year to Apply for Asylum. Many Won’t Make It, N.Y. Times (July 3, 2023); Sullivan, Lawyers Say Helping Asylum Seekers in Border Custody Is Nearly Impossible, N.Y. Times (July 22, 2023);Shear, Turkewitz & Sandeval, How and Why Illegal Border Crossings Have Dropped So Dramatically, N.Y. Times (July 26, 2023);

[3] Jordan & Sullivan, Federal Judge Blocks Biden Administration’s New Asylum Policy, N.Y. Times (July 25, 2023); Hackman & Caldwell, Judge blocks Biden Administration Asylum rules, W.S.J. (July 25, 2023); Editorial: Why are courts messing up a Biden asylum policy that works? Wash.Post ( July 27, 2023).

[4] Shear, Appeals Court Allows Biden’s Asylum Restrictions to Continue for Now, N.Y. Times (Aug. 3, 3023); Sacchetti & Miroff, Biden’s asylum restrictions for migrants may remain in place, federal appeals court rules, Wash. Post (Aug. 4, 2023)

Biden Administration Announces Proposed Restrictions on Asylum Applications

On February 21, the Biden Administration announced a proposed rule that would require rapid deportation of an immigrant at the U.S. border who had failed to request protection from another country while en route to the U.S. or who had not previously notified the U.S. via a mobile app of their plan to seek asylum in the U.S. or who had applied for the new U.S. humanitarian parole programs for certain countries (Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela). This rule will take effect on May 11, with the expected termination that day of Title 42 that allowed the U.S. to swiftly expel migrants at the U.S. border.[1]

The Administration says that without this new rule, immigration at the U.S. border would “increase significantly, to a level that risks undermining the … continued ability to safely, effectively and humanely enforce and administer U.S. immigration law.”

Reactions to the New Rule[2]

“In a joint statement, Democratic Sens. Bob Menendez (N.J.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Ben Ray Luján (N.M.) and Alex Padilla (Calif.) called on the administration to drop the proposed rule. “We are deeply disappointed that the administration has chosen to move forward with publishing this proposed rule, which only perpetuates the harmful myth that asylum seekers are a threat to this nation. In reality, they are pursuing a legal pathway in the United States.”

A similar reaction came from leading Democratic House members (Rep. Jerrold Nadler and Pramila Jayapal). In their joint statement, they expressed “deep disappointment” with the newly proposed rule and stated, “The ability to seek asylum is a bedrock principle protected by federal law and should never be violated. We should not be restricting legal pathways to enter the United States, we should be expanding them.”

“Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, said they applaud the expanded pathways for those four countries announced in January but question where that leaves migrants from other countries. She says it favors people with resources who can afford the necessary requirements of finding a financial sponsor and buying a plane ticket to the U.S. And some people are so at risk, they simply cannot wait in their country for a humanitarian parole slot. Critics have also highlighted technological problems with the app.”

“The Federation for American Immigration Reform said that the rule isn’t designed to halt migrants as much as make the process more orderly: “In other words, the real objective is not to end large-scale asylum abuse, but rather to get them through the next election cycle.”

Although this blogger has been a pro bono attorney for asylum applicants and more generally an advocate for strong U.S. laws and procedures for same and although he is sympathetic to the above criticisms of the new proposed rules, it must be acknowledged that there is nothing in the international treaty or U.S. statutes on asylum that requires the U.S. to provide asylum interviews at the border to undocumented immigrants. Moreover, this and related changes in U.S. asylum laws and procedures are counterbalanced by new procedures in U.S. law for asylum or parole applications in Central American countries for at least some of these immigrants (Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela).

====================

[1] DHS and DOJ Propose Rule to Incentivize Lawful Migration Processes, DHS (Feb. 21, 2023); Jordan, Biden Administration Announces New Border Crackdown, N.Y. Times (Feb. 21, 2023); Parti & Caldwell, Biden Administration Proposes New Limits on Asylum Seekers, W.S.J. (Feb. 21, 2023); Miroff, Asylum seekers who cross U.S. border illegally face new Biden rule, Wash. Post (Feb. 21, 2023); Santana, How Biden asylum rule affects immigration, compares to Trump, Wash. Post (Feb. 22, 2023).

[2] See n.1.

Memory Issues for People in Their Eighties

Joe Biden, who just turned 80, will be 86 in 2028 should he be re-elected and serve another four-year term as U.S. President. This has prompted political speculation whether his age is or should be a disqualifying attribute for his seeking re-election. This issue was discussed in an interesting New York Times article about memory issues facing people in their 80’s in the U.S.[1]

The article starts with the following general comments:

“[W]hile the risk of life-threatening diseases, dementia and death rises faster with each passing decade of a person’s life, experts in geriatrics say that people in their 80s who are active, engaged and have a sense of purposecan remain productive and healthy — and that wisdom and experience are important factors to consider.”
“ Biden, . . . experts agreed, has a lot going in his favor: He is highly educated, has plenty of social interaction, a stimulating job that requires a lot of thinking, is married and has a strong family network — all factors that, studies show, are protective against dementia and conducive to healthy aging. He does not smoke or drink alcohol and, according to the White House, he exercises five times a week. He also has top-notch medical care.”
“His race is another [positive] factor. The life expectancy for the average white, 80-year-old man is another eight years, said Dr. John Rowe, a professor of health policy and aging at Columbia University. ‘And that’s the average,’ Dr. Rowe said. ‘A lot of those 80-year-olds are already sick; they are already in the nursing home.’”
“Scientists who study aging stress that chronological age is not the same as biological age — and that the two often diverge as people grow older. It is true that older people tend to decline physically, and the brain also undergoes changes. But in people who are active, experts say, the brain continues to evolve and some brain functions can even improve— a phenomenon experts call the ‘neuroplasticity of aging.’”
“’This idea that old age is associated with only declines is not true,’ said Dilip Jeste, a psychiatrist who has studied aging at the University of California, San Diego. ‘There are studies that have been done all over the world which show that in people who keep active physically, socially, mentally and cognitively there is increased connectivity among specific networks, and even new neurons and synapses can form in selected brain regions with older age.’”

Further comments were provided by five additional experts.

“Dr. Dan Blazer, professor emeritus and psychiatric epidemiologist at Duke University School of Medicine, who led a committee of experts that examined “cognitive aging” for the National Academy of Sciences in 2015, said, ‘Slippage of memory is something that is usual, but it is not a real deficit.’ He described such slippage this way: ‘They forget, they remember they have forgotten and they eventually remember what they have forgotten.’”

Another expert on aging, Dr. Gill Livingston, a psychiatrist at University College London, who led a commission on dementia in 2020, observed, ‘Once people reach 65, the risk of dementia doubles every five years. In general, she said, in high-income countries like the United States, dementia will affect 10 percent of people aged 80 to 84 and 20 percent of those aged 85 to 89.”

Lisa Berkman, a professor of public policy at the Harvard School of Public Health who studies health and aging, added a more nuanced view. ‘People in their 80s commonly experience declines; we shouldn’t be naïve about that. And at the same time, there is so much variability. People who are doing well and are in the top level of functioning, have the odds of going for another 10 years, of doing really well during this time and making very important contributions.’”

Jay Olshansky, an epidemiologist at the University of Illinois Chicago, names both Mr. Biden and former President Donald J. Trump, who is 76, as likely fitting the profile of “super-agers” — a ‘subgroup of people that maintain their mental and physical functioning and tend to live longer than the average person their age.’”

“Dr. Olshansky also says it is a misconception to think being president ages a person; in fact, former presidents tend to live longer, as an analysis he published in 2011 showed. Former President Jimmy Carter, who has been active well into his 90s, turned 98 last month. President George H.W. Bush was 94 when he died in 2018.”

“As the baby boom cohort ages, the number of octogenarians is growing into what experts have called a “silver tsunami.” In its 2020 Profile of Older Americans, the federal Department of Health and Human Services reported that the 85-and-older population was projected to more than double from 6.6 million in 2019 to 14.4 million in 2040.”

Reactions

On November 21, the Times published 583 comments on this article. Here are a few of them:

Jim K said, “If either party offers a younger candidate with a fresher and less polarizing vision/agenda for the nation, that party’s candidate will probably win the election. In my opinion, that is who the independents – the middle of the road types – would vote for.”
Joe Barnett said, “If he decides not to run, he can wait until the primaries and then endorse or just watch the Democrats pull from their wealth of talent to replace him.”
Northern D offered, “It will actually speak to Biden’s legacy if he knows when to leave and still be capable of helping his successor not matter who he or she is. In my estimation that should be sooner rather than later.”
Therion boston, “Step down Man! The United States needs a leader that is younger, fresher, and more vibrant. Our whole country needs to put forward a fresh face.”
MCM said, “The appropriate question is whether the United States can run the risk that he may not be. And the article suggests that while he has many advantages, that possibility exists.”
WHC says, “By their mid80s most individuals have some cognitive decline, and if there is one job where we don’t want the holder to have cognitive decline it’s president of the United States. Yes, decline is not guaranteed, but the odds are clearly rising, and shutting your eyes to it—or to declare legitimate worries ageism, as though he’s just a laid off fifty something—isn’t serving your readers.”

Although I voted for Mr. Biden in the 2020 election, I think he should not run for re-election because of concerns about the potential adverse effects of his aging during a second term and of some voters declining to vote for him for that reason. I also think that many of the younger voters, who turned out in great numbers in the 2020 election, would appreciate having a younger candidate to vote for. My recommendations: U.S. Senators Cory Booker or Amy Klobuchar.

As a mid-80’s white male, retired lawyer with three university degrees who is in relatively good health and active in various ways, I am glad to learn that my age does not automatically mean that I am destined to suffer significant physical and mental decline in the balance of my 80’s. However, I acknowledge that my short-term memory is not as sharp as it used to be. When I mentioned this issue to a friend of my generation, he loaned me a book, “Remember” that emphasizes forgetting is part of being human while some memories are built to last only a few seconds and others can last a lifetime. The book’s author, Lisa Genova, is a neuroscientist and acclaimed novelist. I look forward to reading this book and hopefully getting tips on improving my memory.[2]

================================

[1] Stolberg, The President Is Turning 80. Experts Say Age Is More Than a Number, N.Y. Times (Nov. 20, 2022),

[2] Author Spotlight: Lisa Genova, Harmony Books.

Witnessing

Witnessing is an important human activity and responsibility.

Sometimes witnessing is a planned activity, like attending or watching and listening to a concert, play, movie, sporting event or a church worship service and then reporting (orally or in writing) what happened to others. Witnessing sometimes, however, is not planned beforehand when you observe something happening in your presence and subsequently tell others what you had observed.

Witnessing by Darnella Frazier [1]

An important example of the latter type of witnessing was provided by Darnella Frazier, a 17-year-old high school student, in Minneapolis at the corner of Chicago Avenue and 38^th Street on May 25, 2020.

By happenstance she and her nine-year-old cousin walked from their home to the nearby Cup Foods store on that corner to buy some snacks. When they arrived at the store they noticed in the street a Minneapolis police car where a black man (George Floyd) was pinned in pain on the pavement by three Minneapolis policemen. Frazier immediately got out her cell phone and started a video recording of this event and then held her camera steady for over the next ten minutes until the Black man apparently died. She then posted this video recording on her FACEBOOK page, which immediately was seen by many people around the world.

The next day in an interview by the StarTribune Frazier said she started the video recording ”as soon as I heard . . [the Black man] trying to fight for his life. It was like a natural instinct, honestly. The world needed to see what I was seeing. Stuff like this happens in silence too many times.” She hoped that the video can in some way bring about “peace and equality. We are tired of [police] killing us.” It was obvious to her that the officer had “seen how weak [Floyd] was, and he still proceeded. . . . My video proves what really happened.”

Frazier amplified her remarks in March 2021 FACEBOOK postings. “George Floyd was already cuffed on the ground, a knee to the neck when [the] restraint already is absolutely unnecessary. The man was begging for his life and Chauvin did not care. He deserves to go down.” Moreover, I can’t go to sleep in silence, my mind will eat me alive.” Frazier also criticized the falsity of the Minneapolis Police Department’s initial public report of this incident that stated the following:

“On Monday evening, shortly after 8:00 pm, officers from the Minneapolis Police Department responded to the 3700 block of Chicago Avenue South on a report of a forgery in progress. Officers were advised that the suspect was sitting on top of a blue car and appeared to be under the influence.”
“Two officers arrived and located the suspect, a male believed to be in his 40s, in his car. He was ordered to step from his car. After he got out, he physically resisted officers.”
Officers were able to get the suspect into handcuffs and noted he appeared to be suffering medical distress.”
“Officers called for an ambulance. He was transported to Hennepin County Medical Center by ambulance where he died a short time later.”
“At no time were weapons of any type used by anyone involved in this incident.”
“The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension has been called in to investigate this incident at the request of the Minneapolis Police Department.”
“No officers were injured in the incident.”
“Body worn cameras were on and activated during this incident.”

At Chauvin’s recently concluded criminal trial, Frazier was the fourth witness called by the prosecution and provided moving and emotional testimony about what she observed and did that day. “When I look at George Floyd I look at my dad, I look at my brothers, I look at my cousins, my uncles, because they are all Black. I have a Black father, I have Black brothers, I have Black friends. I look at that and how it could have been one of them. It’s been nights I’ve stayed up apologizing and apologizing to George Floyd for not doing more and not physically interacting and not saving his life. It’s not what I should have done. It’s what he [Chauvin] should have done.” She also testified that Chauvin had a “cold look—heartless. It didn’t seem like he cared.”

In cross examination, defense counsel Erik Nelson was trying to fabricate a scene with bystanders becoming increasingly hostile to the point of creating a potential threat to the officers. Frazier agreed that bystanders were getting louder and angrier, but she added that she didn’t think anyone was ever threatening Chauvin.

After the jury on April 20^th rendered its verdict that Chauvin was guilty on all three counts, Frazier said on FACEBOOK, “I just cried so hard. This last hour my heart was beating so fast, I was so anxious, anxiety [busting] through the roof. But to know GUILTY ON ALL 3 CHARGES !!! THANK YOU GOD THANK YOU … George Floyd we did it!! Justice has been served.”

Courage Award for Darnella Frazier [2]

Praise for Frazier’s actions at the scene of the Floyd killing actually started in October 2020, when PEN America, which works to defend and celebrate free expression in the United States and worldwide through the advancement of literature and human rights, announced that it was granting its annual Benenson Courage Award to Frazier. The announcement stated the following:

“In May 2020, Frazier documented the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers, one of whom—Derek Chauvin—pressed his knee against Floyd’s neck, well after Floyd lost consciousness. Frazier’s video quickly spread across social media and led to a wave of community outrage, a major investigation, and Chauvin’s arrest, as well as the dismissal of [him and] the three other officers. Floyd’s killing, along with the deaths of Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Tony McDade, Dion Johnson, and others, drove a wave of activism across the country crying out for racial and economic justice.”

This award was presented at a virtual ceremony on December 8, 2020, by Spike Lee, the famous Oscar-winning film director. He said, “I’m so proud of my sister. She documented the murder of George Floyd, our brother, King Floyd. And that footage reverberated around this God’s earth, and people took to the streets all over this earth. Not just the United States of America, and it wasn’t just Black people either. Everybody took to the streets. My sister, I commend you, and you deserve . . . the PEN/Benenson Courage Award. The [important] word is courage!”

Ms. Frazier accepted the Award with these comments: “ I would like to say thank you for honoring me with this PEN/Benenson Courage Award. I never would imagine out of my whole 17 years of living that this will be me. It’s just a lot to take in, but I couldn’t say thank you enough for everything that’s been coming towards me. Thanks to Mr. Lee for presenting this, and I appreciate that. Thank you for the PEN/Benenson Courage Award.”

Then followed thank you’s for her courage from attendees, including Meryl Streep, Anita Hill and U.S. Senator Cory Booker.

Other Praises for Frazier [3]

Many others have praised Frazier for her courage and quick-thinking on May 25th.

Her recording this video was praised at a June 11, 2020, press conference by Minneapolis Police chief Medaria Arradondo, “I am thankful, absolutely, that this [police encounter] was captured in the manner it was. [In similar situations, he encouraged others,]“Record, Record, absolutely. Record, call . . . a friend. Yell out. Call 911. We need a supervisor on the scene. Absolutely, we need to know that. So the community [should[ play a vital role and did two weeks ago.”

Chauvin’s conviction brought immediate praise for Frazier. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz said, Frazier’s taking “that video, I think many folks know, is maybe the only reason that Derek Chauvin will go to prison.” The NAACP in North Carolina, the state where Floyd was born. stated “The video shot by a high school student will go down in history. Not even many of Chauvin’s police colleagues, could argue against Ms. Frazier’s film.” Oprah Winfrey tweeted, “I’m grateful to the witnesses and their testimonies. Grateful to Darnella Frazier. Grateful to every juror for seeing and acknowledging what the world saw on that tape. Thank you God for real!”

Michelle Norris, a Washington Post columnist and a Minnesota native and graduate of the University of Minnesota, states Frazier “was the witness George Floyd needed on May 25, 2020. She was the witness we all needed—the public, the police, a country still grappling with racial codes that are stitched into the fabric of our governing institutions. She is the hero of this story.”

Norris continued, “Her bravery is a reminder that we too must not look away, and not just in the most wicked moments of bias but also in the small things that grease the runway toward larger prejudice. We must not look away when we see the softer kind of oppression that masks itself in offhand comments, and jokes, and the denigration and dismissal of ‘those people.’”

“And when I say ‘we,’ I am also talking about our public servants and especially our law enforcement officers who know too well that there are those in their ranks who ‘police’ from a dark and dangerous perspective. They know that some officers are guided by prejudice and proceed from warped beliefs. Those officers debase the entire profession.”

Conclusion

Seven other bystanders to the killing of George Floyd testified in the Chauvin trial, including Judeah Reynolds, who is Frazier’s nine-year-old cousin. As Prosecutor Jerry Blackwell said in his closing argument, all of these bystander witnesses “were a bouquet of humanity.”[4]

All of the bystanders testimony was applauded by two prominent journalists. For Frank Bruni, the New York times columnist, these witnesses are “tormented by their memories of Floyd’s last minutes” and Floyd’s and their sense of “helplessness” of not being able to stop what was being done to Floyd. The Chicago Tribune’s columnist, Heidi Stevens, called these bystanders “stone catchers” or people who stand up and intervene when someone’s been wrongly accused and condemned. (This phrase is based upon Jesus rebuking men who were ready to stone to death a woman caught in adultery by asking them who is without sin to cast the first stone, which prompted all the men to drop their stones and walk away and upon Bryan Stevenson of the Equal Justice Initiative coining the phrase “stone catchers.” [4]

This reference to the Bible should remind those of religious faith of our calling to be witnesses and give testimony. This is not easy. You have to give your account of what happened and your belief as to what it means. The person has to stand and say what he or she believes about God.

================================

[1] Walsh, For first time, Minneapolis teen opens up about her viral George Floyd arrest video, StarTribune (Mar. 12, 2021); Minneapolis Police Department, Man Dies After Medical Incident During Police Interaction (May 25, 2020); Paybarah, How a teenager’s video upended the police department’s initial tale, N.Y. Times (April 20, 2021); Bogel-Burroughs & Arango, Darnella Frazier, the teenager who filmed George Floyd’s arrest, testifies at the trial, N.Y. Times (Mar. 30, 2021); Assoc. Press, [Video] ‘He Was Suffering’: Teenager Who Filmed Floyd’s Arrest Testifies at Trial, N.Y. Times (Mar. 30, 2021); Watch the replays” Day 2 testimony of witnesses Donald Williams and Darnella Frazier, StarTribune (Mar. 30, 2021); Xiong, Walsh & Olson, Teen who recorded George Floyd’s death reveals trauma, pain in testimony, StarTribune (Mar. 31, 2021); Jackson, Derek Chauvin trial shows people who film police violence later struggle with trauma, StarTribune (April 2, 2021); Derek Chauvin Trial: Week Four, dwkcommentaries.com (April 4, 2021); Knowles & Belia, Darnella Frazier, teen who filmed Floyd’s arrest, celebrates Chauvin’s guilty verdict: ‘Justice has been served,’ Wash. Post (April 21, 2021); Yan, A teen with ‘a cell phone and sheer guts’ is credited for Derek Chauvin’s murder conviction, cnn.comm (April 21, 2021); Fowler, You have the right to film police. Here’s how to do it effectively—and safely, Wash. Post (April 22, 2021).

[2] See note 1 supra. See also Walsh, Minneapolis teen ‘humbled’ to receive national Courage Award for filming George Floyd’s killing by police, StarTribune (Oct. 29, 2020); PEN America, Darnella Frazier, Dec. 8, 2020); Walsh, Minneapolis teen receives prestigious award for recording George Floyd video, StarTribune (Dec. 10, 2020).

[3] Norris, Opinion: Darnella Frazier is the hero of this story, Wash. Post (April 21, 2021). This blog has frequently commented about Bryan Stevenson’s amazing legal representation of death-row inmates and others. See also Sullivan, By bearing witness—and hitting ‘record’—17-year-old Darnella Frazier may have changed the world, Wash. Post (April 20, 2021.).

[4] The other bystander witnesses were Alyssa Funaru (17 years old), Kaylynn Gilbert (17 years old), Genevieve Hansen, Donald Williams II, Christopher Belfrey and Charles McMillian. (Derek Chauvin Trial: Week Four, dwkcommentaries.com (April 4, 2021). Bruni, Listening to Those Who Saw George Floyd Die, N.Y. Times (April 24, 2021); Stevens, ‘The world needed to see what I was seeing,’ StarTribune (April 23, 2021)..

Congress Fails To Pass Federal Police Reform Bills

On June 24 and 25, the divisions between the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate and the Democrat-controlled U.S. House again emerged, this time to prevent, in all likelihood, the adoption of any federal police reform bills this year.

U.S. Senate[1]

On June 24 the Senate was prepared to debate The Justice Act, a bill authored by Senator Tim Scott (Rep., SC), that would encourage state and local police departments to change their practices, by limiting the use of chokeholds, requiring new de-escalation training for officers and better systems for tracking misconduct and penalizing departments that did not require the use of body cameras. It, however, would not alter the qualified immunity doctrine that shields officers from lawsuits or place new federal restrictions on the use of lethal force.

The Senate Democrats criticized this bill as insufficient to respond to the problem of systemic racism in law enforcement as the basis for an objection to consideration of the bill. This forced a motion for consideration that, under Senate rules, needs at least 60 votes to pass, but only had 55 votes with Democrats Doug Jones of Alabama and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Independent Angus King of Maine joining 52 Republicans. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Rep., Tenn.) voted against that motion so that subsequently he could make a motion for reconsideration by announcing his intent to switch his vote.

After this defeat, Senator Scott stated on the floor that he had had offered to give Democrats as many as 20 votes on proposed modifications to his bill that they were demanding, but that they had refused to accept. Privately, Democrats noted that revising the bill would have also required the approval of 60 senators, a threshold they feared they would not be able to meet.

It is still possible that the Scott bill could be brought up again this year in the Senate by the Majority Leader, Senator Mitch McConnell switching his vote from “Yes” to “No” on a motion for reconsideration.

In the meantime, on June 25 the Senate by unanimous consent separately passed a provision of Mr. Scott’s bill to establish a commission on the social status of black men and boys, tasked with recommending policies to improve government programs.

U.S. House[2]

On June 25, the U.S. House passed, 236-181, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

Representative Karen Bass (Dem., CA), the lead sponsor of the bill, said, “The legislation is the first-ever bold, comprehensive approach to hold police accountable, change the culture of law enforcement, empower our communities, and build trust between law enforcement and our communities by addressing systemic racism and bias to help save lives. Congressional Black Caucus Chair Karen Bass (D-CA), Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Kamala Harris (D-CA), and House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) introduced the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020 on June 8, 2020. The legislation has 231 cosponsors in the House and 36 cosponsors in the Senate.”

“Under the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, for the first time ever federal law would: 1) ban chokeholds; 2) end racial and religious profiling; 3) eliminate qualified immunity for law enforcement;[3] 4) establish national standard for the operation of police departments; 5) mandate data collection on police encounters; 6) reprogram existing funds to invest in transformative community-based policing programs; and 7) streamline federal law to prosecute excessive force and establish independent prosecutors for police investigations.” In greater detail, the Act:

“Prohibits federal, state, and local law enforcement from racial, religious and discriminatory profiling, and mandates training on racial, religious, and discriminatory profiling for all law enforcement.
Bans chokeholds, carotid holds and no-knock warrants at the federal level and limits the transfer of military-grade equipment to state and local law enforcement.
Mandates the use of dashboard cameras and body cameras for federal offices and requires state and local law enforcement to use existing federal funds to ensure the use of police body cameras.
Establishes a National Police Misconduct Registry to prevent problematic officers who are fired or leave on agency from moving to another jurisdiction without any accountability.
Amends federal criminal statute from “willfulness” to a “recklessness” standard to successfully identify and prosecute police misconduct.
Reforms qualified immunity so that individuals are not barred from recovering damages when police violate their constitutional rights.
Establishes public safety innovation grants for community-based organizations to create local commissions and task forces to help communities to re-imagine and develop concrete, just and equitable public safety approaches.
Creates law enforcement development and training programs to develop best practices and requires the creation of law enforcement accreditation standard recommendations based on President Obama’s Taskforce on 21st Century policing.
Requires state and local law enforcement agencies to report use of force data, disaggregated by race, sex, disability, religion, age.
Improves the use of pattern and practice investigations at the federal level by granting the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division subpoena power and creates a grant program for state attorneys general to develop authority to conduct independent investigations into problematic police departments.
Establishes a Department of Justice task force to coordinate the investigation, prosecution and enforcement efforts of federal, state and local governments in cases related to law enforcement misconduct.”

It would make lynchings a federal hate crime, ban federal officials from using chokeholds, ban federal funds to state and local law enforcement agencies that do not bar chokeholds, bar law enforcement from racial and religious profiling, make it easier to prosecute police officers for misconduct and allow civilians to recover some damages if their constitutional rights are found to have been violated by police, a change to the judicial doctrine known as qualified immunity.

It should be noted that three Republican representatives voted for this bill: Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), Will Hurd (TX) and Fred Upton (MI).

Conclusion

As a Democrat you supports various means of reforming policing in the U.S., I am disappointed that the Congress was unable to agree on such measures.

However, I think it was a political mistake for the Senate Democrats to block consideration of the Senator Tim Scott reform bill. As I understand what happened in the Senate, the Democrats had no objections to the bill’s provisions. Instead, they objected that the bill did not go far enough. Their objections could have been made during the debate on the Scott bill, with or without proposed amendments that probably would be defeated by the Republican majority. Moreover, by allowing the Republicans to approve the bill would allow the Democrats to provide political support to Republican Senator Tim Scott.

This assessment was shared by Marc A. Thiessen, a fellow of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, a Fox News contributor and a Washington Post columnist, He emphasized that stopping such a debate in the Senate eliminated the possibility of having such a discussion in that body for the foreseeable future and even the possibility of having some Democratic amendments adopted. Thiessen claims that the bill already included some Democratic proposed additions: making lynching a federal hate crime, creating a national policing commission to review the U.S. criminal justice system, barring chokeholds by federal officers, withholding federal funds from state and local law enforcement agencies that do not bar chokeholds and that do not report use of non-knock warrants to the U.S. Justice Department. Indeed, according to Thiessen, Senator Scott had said he would vote to support some of the proposed amendments.[4]

Such a Democratic strategy also would have avoided the embarrassing comment by Senator Richard Durbin (Dem., IL) that the Scott bill was “a token, half-hearted approach,” by an African-American man who personally had experienced police discrimination that compelled the subsequent apology from Senator Durbin.

Moreover, the Democrat-controlled House the next day adopted the more comprehensive reform bill which they wanted and which the Republican-controlled Senate undoubtedly will reject when it goes there.

============================

[1] U.S. Senate, Justice Act, 116^th Congress, 2d Sess. (full text); U.S. Senate, JUSTICE Act (Just and Unifying Solutions to Invigorate Communities Everywhere): Section-by-Section Analysis, 116^th Congress, 2d Sess.; Senator Scott, Press Release: Senator Tim Scott Delivers Fiery Speech on Senate floor After Senate Democrats Stonewall Legislation on Police Reform Across America (June 24, 2020); Senator Scott, Press Release: Senate Democrats Block Police Reform from Coming to Communities Across America (June 24, 2020); Edmondson & Fandos, Senate G.O.P. Unveils Narrow Policing Bill, Setting Up a Clash with Democrats, N.Y. Times (June 17 & 24, 2020); Edmondson, Senate Democrats Block G.O.P. Police bill, calling It Inadequate, N.Y.Times (June 24, 2020); Kim, Senate Democrats block GOP policing bill, stalling efforts to change law enforcement practices, Wash. Post (June 24, 2020); Balko, Both parties’ police reform bills ae underwhelming. Here’s why, Wash. Post (June 24, 2020); Peterson & Zitner, Senate Democrats Block GOP Policing Bill, W.S.J. (June 24, 2020); Editorial, The No Debate Democrats, W.S.J. (June 24, 2020); Bobi, Police Reform Stalls Out in The Senate, HuffPost (June 24, 2020).

[2] Representative Bass, Press Release: House Passes George Floyd Justice in Policing Act (June 25, 2020); George Floyd Justice in Policing Act (full text); Congressional Black Caucus, Fact Sheet: George Floyd Justice in Policing Act ; House Passes George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, N.Y. Times (June 25, 2020); Andrews, House Passes Democrats’ Policing Bill, but No Path Seen for Deal, W.S.J. (June 25, 2020); Carney, Gridlock mires chances of police reform bill, The Hill (June 25, 2020); Brufke, Three GOP lawmakers vote for Democrat-led police reform bill, The Hill (June 25, 2020).

[3] The qualified immunity defense was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978) that victims can’t recover damages from the city under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 unless the police misconduct was a breach of an “official policy or custom.” Subsequent Supreme Court cases have reaffirmed that standard to limit liability to “the plainly incompetent” and “those who knowingly violate the law.” (Malley v. Briggs (1986); Mccleary v. Navarro (1982), and just this month the Court refused to hear current cases challenging that standard. (Reuters, Supreme Court Rejects Cases Over ‘Qualified Immunity’ for Police, N.Y. times (June 15, 2020).) As Peter Schuck, a professor emeritus at Yale Law School, pointed out, a simple amendment of that 1871 statute would eliminate this defense. (Schuck, The Other Police Immunity Problem, W.S.J. (June 24, 2020).)

[4] Theissen, Democrats’ shameful vote against Tim Scott’s police reform bill, Wash. Post (June 25, 2020).

U.S. Senators Oppose U.S. Reduction in Refugee Admissions for Fiscal 2020

As reported in a prior post. President Trump has reduced the number of refugee admissions to the U.S. for Fiscal 2020 (October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020) to 18,000.

Now a group of 10 Democratic U.S. senators have voiced opposition to that reduction. They are Senators Amy Klobuchar (MN), Cory Booker (NJ) and Kamala Harris (CA)—all of whom are candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020—plus Senators Richard Blumenthal (CT), Christopher Coons (DE), Richard Durbin (IL), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Mazie Hirono (HI), Patrick Leahy (VT) and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI).[1]

First, they say the new quota “could effectively—and perhaps intentionally—damage our long-term capacity to resettle refugees” in the U.S. The new quota “could effectively end” the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program by “starving the infrastructure built by resettlement agencies” that helps “refugees integrate into U..S. communities.” Already because of previous reductions in this quota by the Trump Administration, “approximately 100 offices operated by “ such agencies (as of April 2019) have closed.

Second, “the administration’s allocation of refugee admissions among particular categories of individuals could render it impossible to meet even the depressed cap of 18,000 refugees.” One example is the 4,000 for Iraqis, where because of lengthy U.S. security checks very few already are being admitted. Another example is the 7,500 allocated for others appears to exclude individuals referred by the U.N.

Third, another threat to the continued operation of refugee resettlement is the President’s executive order’s stating “that refugees may only be resettled ‘in those jurisdictions in which both the State and local governments have consented to receive refugees. . . . This requirement undoubtedly cause disruptions and disputes in the refugee settlement process—which, incidentally, already includes a consultation process with state and local officials. Moreover, permitting state and local jurisdictions to drive refugee policy subverts over a century of binding Supreme court precedent . . . that immigration policy . . . is uniquely within the purview of the federal government.”

They concluded, “We are facing the most significant displacement and refugee crisis in modern history. Reaffirming our historic role as the world’s humanitarian leader in this moment is not just about promoting our values. It is about protecting our security interests.”

The senators, therefore, requested a briefing about the new, lower quota. in their joint letter to Secretary of State Michael Pompeo and Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan.

=================================

[1] Letter, Senators Blumenthal, et al. to Secretary of State Michael Pompeo and Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Kevin McAleenan (Nov. 6, 2019); Senator Feinstein, Feinstein, Harris, Leahy Lead Judiciary Democrats Urging Briefing Following Latest Trump Admin Move to Restrict Refugees (Nov. 6, 2019); Senator Harris, Harris, Leahy Lead Judiciary Democrats Urging Briefing Following Latest Trump Admin Move to Restrict Refugees (Nov. 6, 2019); Rao, Senator Klobuchar, other senators oppose reduction in refugees, StarTribune (Nov. 10, 2019); Senator Leahy, Harris and Leahy Lead Judiciary Democrats Urging Briefing Following Latest Trump Admin Move to Restrict Refugees (Nov. 6, 2019).

Senators Express Deep Concern Over Commission on Unalienable Rights

On July 23, 2019, a group of 22 Senators told Secretary of State Pompeo of their “deep concern” over the new U.S. Commission on Unalienable Rights. [1]

The Senators said they “vehemently disagree” with the Secretary’s assertion that there was “confusion” over what human rights are. “The 1948 UN declaration of Human Rights begins by declaring that the recognition of the equal and inalienable rights ‘of all members of the human family is the foundation of the freedom, justice and peace.’ Moreover, widely ratified international treaties codify ‘inalienable’ rights.”

The letter continued, “it seems the administration is reluctant—or even hostile—to protected established internationally recognized definitions of human rights, particularly those requiring it to uphold protections for reproductive rights and the rights of marginalized communities, including LGBT persons. The [Secretary’s] assertion that decades of well-defined agreement on human rights has sown confusion over what rights are is simply an Orwellian twist to defend the indefensible.” In short, the Commission is “absurd, particularly from an administration that has taken a wrecking ball to America’s global leadership on protecting human rights across the world” by supporting “despotic governments abroad,” by “ignoring the devastating abuses and rights of children and families on our border” and by President Trump’s fawning “ over current abusers of human rights such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

The senators also were concerned that the Commission’s membership was not fairly balanced, in accordance with federal law (41 C.F.R. Section 102-3.30). “The Commission’s chair and members are overwhelmingly clergy or scholars known to support discriminatory policies toward LGBT persons, hold views hostile to women’s rights and reproductive freedom, and/or support positions at odds with U.S. treaty obligations.”

Finally the letter protested the Secretary’s failure to consult or obtain input from the Department’s career human rights experts.

This letter to Pompeo was organized by Senator Bob Menendez (NJ), the Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The letter was signed by the following Democratic presidential candidates: Kamala Harris (CA), Michael Bennet (CO), Elizabeth Warren (MA), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Cory Booker (NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) and Bernie Sanders (IN, VT). Other Democratic Senator signatories were Tammy Baldwin (WI), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Benjamin L. Cardin (MD), Christopher Coons (DE), Tammy Duckworth (IL), Patrick Leahy (VT), Edward J. Markey (MA), Jeffrey A. Merkley (OR), Patty Murray (WA ), Jack Reed (RI), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Tina Smith (MN), Chris Van Hollen (MD), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) and Ben Wyden (OR).

Conclusion

This blog, which is sceptical about the true purpose of this Commission, has published many posts about this Commission.

==================================

[1] Letter, U.S. Senators to Secretary Pompeo (July 23, 2019); Lederman & Lee, human rights groups lead chorus of alarm over new Trump administration commission, NBC News (July 23, 2019); Budryk, Democrats, advocacy groups urge Pompeo to abolish new ‘unalienable rights’ commission, The Hill (July 24, 2019).

U.S. Senator Jeff Flake Issues Another Challenge for All Americans

U.S. Senator Jeff Flake (Rep., AZ), now self-released from the pressures of running for re-election, has been speaking truth to the power of President Donald Trump. Last October he did so in a speech on the Senate floor and an op-ed article in the Washington Post followed by responses to the many letters he had received.[1] Then this January he did so again in another speech on the Senate floor condemning Trump’s tweets and “fake news” tirades.[2]

The latest was on May 23, 2018, at the Harvard Law School at the invitation of its law students.[3] Here is what he said.

Senator Flake’s Harvard Speech

I am . . . humbled by this moment in the life of our country. You see, you are set to inherit the world in just the nick of time.

I am also especially humbled given the fact that I come to you today from the political class. In utter seriousness, it is I who could benefit from listening to you today rather than speaking to you, as I am not so sure that there is much distilled wisdom to be imparted from Washington these days, given what has lately become the tawdriness of my profession. I am here today as representative of a co-equal branch of our federal government, which is failing its constitutional obligations to counteract the power of the president, and in so doing is dishonoring itself, at a critical moment in the life of our nation.

And so, with humility, let me suggest that perhaps it is best to consider what I have to say today as something of a cautionary tale –

about the rule of law and its fragility;
about our democratic norms and how hard-won and vulnerable they are;
about the independence of our system of justice, and how critically important it is to safeguard it from malign actors who would casually destroy that independence for their own purposes and without a thought to the consequences;
about the crucial predicate for all of these cherished American values: Truth. Empirical, objective truth;
and lastly, about the necessity to defend these values and these institutions that you will soon inherit, even if that means sometimes standing alone. Even if it means risking something important to you, maybe even your career. Because there are times when circumstances may call on you to risk your career in favor of your principles.

Not to be unpleasant, but I do bring news from our nation’s capital. First, the good news: Your national leadership is…not good. At all. Our presidency has been debased. By a figure who has a seemingly bottomless appetite for destruction and division. And only a passing familiarity with how the Constitution works.

And our Article I branch of government, the Congress (that’s me), is utterly supine in the face of the moral vandalism that flows from the White House daily. I do not think that the Founders could have anticipated that the beauty of their invention might someday founder on the rocks of reality television, and that the Congress would be such willing accomplices to this calamity. Our most ardent enemies, doing their worst (and they are doing their worst), couldn’t hurt us more than we are hurting ourselves.

Now, you might reasonably ask, where is the good news in that?

Well, simply put: We may have hit bottom.

(Oh, and that’s also the bad news. In a rare convergence, the good news and bad news are the same – Our leadership is not good, but it probably can’t get much worse.)

This is it, if you have been wondering what the bottom looks like. This is what it looks like when you stress-test all of the institutions that undergird our constitutional democracy, at the same time. You could say that we are witnesses to history, and if it were possible to divorce ourselves from the obvious tragedy of this debacle, I suppose that might even be interesting, from an academic perspective. The way some rare diseases are interesting to medical researchers.

But this is an experience we could and should have avoided. Getting to this state of distress did not occur naturally. Rather, this was thoroughly man-made. This disease of our polity is far too serious to not be recognized for what it is, the damage it threatens to do to our vital organs is far too great for us to carry on as if all is well. All is not well. We have a sickness of the spirit. To complete the medical metaphor, you might say that we are now in critical condition.

How did we arrive at a moment of such peril – wherein a president of the United States publicly threatens – on Fox & Friends, historians will note — to interfere in the administration of justice, and seems to think that the office confers on him the ability to decide who and what gets investigated, and who and what does not? And just this week, the President – offering an outlandish rationale, ordered an investigation into the investigation of the Russian attack on our electoral process – not to defend the country against further attacks, mind you, but to defend himself. Obviously, ordering investigations is not a legitimate use of presidential power.

I pick this egregious example of recent presidential conduct not because it is rare in terms of this president’s body of work, but because it so perfectly represents what we have tragically grown accustomed to in the past year and a half. Who would have thought that we would ever see encouragement coming from the White House for chants at rallies calling for the jailing of a defeated political opponent. When you don’t even know that there are limits on presidential power, then you might not even care when you are abusing that power.

How did this happen to us? And what might we learn from it? How did we get swept up in this global resurgence of the authoritarian impulse, which now has democracies teetering on the brink, strongmen placing themselves above the law, and in our own country a leader who reveres some of the most loathsome enemies of democracy in our time?

Have we really grown tired of democracy? Are we watching its passing, cheered on by the America First crowd even as we cast aside global institutions that have fostered freedom, prosperity and peace for more than a half-century?

For just a moment, let us marvel at the miracle that is the rule of law. We have seldom been moved to pause for such an appreciation, as we have been too busy taking it for granted and assuming its inviolability – like gravity. But unlike Newton’s Laws, the rule of law was neither innate nor inevitable. What goes up must come down is a piece of cake compared to curbing the impulses of man and asking free people to abide rules and norms that form a country, and foster civilization.

It took centuries of war and sacrifice and social upheaval and more war and great civil rights struggles to establish the foundational notion that no one is either above the law or unworthy of the protections afforded by a robust legal system, a system that took us from feudal servility to a constitutional model that is the envy of the world. And will continue to be, with your help.

We trace the beginnings of this radical egalitarianism – of the awesome and leveling effect of the law – to the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which saw the death of the divine right of kings, as even the monarch from that point forward would be subject to the law – and the parliament even threw in a bill of rights for good measure.

But we are now testing the durability of this idea that William III first had the good sense to agree to, an idea which was then forged and tempered over the ensuing centuries. And we are seeing its vulnerabilities. In other parts of the world where democracy’s roots are not so deep, we are seeing it being torn down with sickening ease and shocking speed. And worse, we are seeing the rise of simulated democracies, Potemkin democracies, democracies in appearance and affect only.

Rule of thumb: If the only acceptable outcome in a matter of law or justice is a result that is satisfactory to the leader, then you might live in a democracy that is in trouble. If the leader attacks the legitimacy of any institution that does not pay him obeisance – say, the independent judiciary, or the free press – then you might live in a democracy that is in trouble. Further to that point: when a figure in power reflexively calls any press that doesn’t suit him “fake news,” it is that person who should be the figure of suspicion, not the press.

It will be the work of your generation to make sure that this degradation of democracy does not continue – to see to it that our current flirtation with lawlessness and authoritarianism does not become a heritable trait to be passed down from this presidency.

The rule of law is an elemental value, a value that preceded and gave rise to our Constitution. It is not an ideology subject to the pendulum swings of politics, or something to be given a thumbs-up or thumbs-down in a call-in to your favorite morning show. It is the basis of our system of self-governance. America without the rule of law is no longer America.

I am a conservative Republican, a throwback from the days when those words actually meant something, before the collapse of our politics into the rank tribalism we currently endure. My sounding this alarm against a government that was elected under the Republican banner and that calls itself conservative makes me no less Republican or conservative. And opposing this president and much of what he stands for is not an act of apostasy – it is, rather, an act of fidelity.

Because we forget this fact far too often, and it bears repeating a thousand times, especially in times such as these: Values transcend politics.

As a conservative Republican, I dare say that my idea of government may differ with the beliefs of many of you here today. I will be thoroughly presumptuous and assume that in terms of policy prescriptions, we disagree on much.

But I have long believed that the only lasting solutions to the problems before us must involve both sides. Lawmaking should never be an exercise in revenge, because vengeful people are myopic, self-interested, and not fit to lead. I believe that our government should include people who believe as I do, just as I believe it must include people who believe as my friend Tim Kaine does, or as my friend Cory Booker does, to name but two.

The greatness of our system is that it is designed to be difficult, in order to force compromise. And when you honor the system, and seek to govern in good faith, the system works.

Which brings us back to our current peril. It is a testament to our times – and to the inflection point that we face – that I am here today. For, setting aside the usual requirements of politics, and the usual ways that politics keeps score, the things that normally divide us seem trivial compared to the trials that have now been visited upon our democracy.

In the face of these challenges, we agree on something far more important than a legislative program, even more important than our thoughts on the proper role of government in the economy and in the lives of individuals: We agree on the need to safeguard the health and survival of constitutional democracy in America and the preservation of the American idea itself – at a time when the values underpinning our constitutional system and that extraordinary idea are under threat, from the top.

The values of the Enlightenment that led to the creation of this idea of America – this unique experiment in world history – are light years removed from the base, cruelly transactional brand of politics that in this moment some people mistakenly think is what it means to make America great.

To be clear, we did not become great – and will never be great – by indulging and encouraging our very worst impulses. It doesn’t matter how many red caps you sell.

The historian Jon Meacham, in his splendid new book, “The Soul of America,” reassures that history shows us that “we are frequently vulnerable to fear, bitterness, and strife.” The good news, he says, “is that we have come through such darkness before.”

Perhaps. But not with both nuclear weapons and Twitter. And certainly not with such an anomalous presidency as this one. But I take your point, Mr. Meacham, and am heartened by it.

We will get through this, of course. But at the moment, we are in it, and we must face it squarely. Because too much is at stake for us to turn away, to leave it to others to defend the things we hold most dear.

A culminating event such as the election of our current president scrambles normal binary notions of politics, and I am as disoriented as many of you are at this dealignment. We find that many of the day’s biggest issues simply don’t break down neatly to familiar ideas of left v. right, but rather more along these lines:

–Do you believe in democracy, or not?

–Are you faithful to your country, or to your party?

–Are you loyal to the law and the Constitution, or to a man?

–Do you reflexively ascribe the worst motives to your opponents, but somehow deny, excuse, or endorse every repulsive thing your compatriot says, does or tweets?

These questions have sent some of us wandering into the political wilderness.

Well, the wilderness suits me fine. In fact, I so love the way Washington has become that in recent years, during congressional recesses, I have taken to stranding myself on deserted islands in the middle of the ocean to detoxify all these feelings of love out of my system. I once spent a week alone, voluntarily marooned, on a tiny island called Jabonwod, a remote spit of sand and coconut trees in the central Pacific, about 7,000 miles from Washington.

As penance, and determined to test my survival skills, I brought no food or water, relying solely on what I could catch or collect. That, it turned out, was the easier part. More difficult was dealing with the stultifying loneliness that set in on the first night and never left me.

Now, I would not recommend such drastic measures to escape your situation, but I hope that should you be presented with the hard choice, you too will eschew comfort and set out into the wilderness rather than compromise your conscience.

I urge you to challenge all of your assumptions, regularly. Recognize the good in your opponents. Apologize every now and then. Admit to mistakes. Forgive, and ask for forgiveness. Listen more. Speak up more, for politics sometimes keeps us silent when we should speak.

And if you find yourself in a herd, crane your neck, look back there and check out your brand, ask yourself if it really suits you. From personal experience, I can say that it’s never too late to leave the herd.

When you peel off from the herd, your equilibrium returns. Food tastes better. You sleep very well. Your mind is your own again. You cease being captive to some bad impulses and even worse ideas.

It can strain relationships, to be sure, and leave you eating alone in the senate dining room every now and then. But that’s okay. To revise and extend a remark the president himself may recognize: You might say that I like people whose minds weren’t captured. That one was for you, Senator McCain. We’re all pulling for you.

Politically speaking, I have not changed my beliefs much at all. But my goodness, how I have changed. How can we live through these abnormal times and not be changed?

Our country needs us now. Our country needs you.

We need each other, and it is a scoundrel who would prosper politically by turning us against each other.

From our time, let us send a message into the future that we did not fail democracy, but that we renewed it. That a patchwork of populist resentments and authoritarian whims that for a while succeeded in its cynical mission of discord had the ultimate effect of shaking us from our complacency, reminding us of who we are and of our responsibilities to each other. Of reawakening us to our obligations as citizens.

Let us be able to say in the future that we faced these forces that would threaten the institutions of our liberty and tear us apart and that we said: NO.

I leave you today with more good news and bad news. This time I will start with the bad news, which is: All of this is yours to fix. All of it.

And that of course is also the good news: All of this is yours to fix, and our country could not be more fortunate than to have people of your high character, strong principle and awesome talent soon taking the helm.

[It] is our obligation to assess the condition of our politics, then to mitigate and repair the damage.

It is the story of America, though, that we will be better for the hard lessons of this experience. We are much better and more decent than Washington shows us to be. We are a good people. And we are a deeply resourceful and resilient nation, and our greatness is based on no one man – no one man who “alone can fix it,” but rather on enduring ideas of self-governance and the rule of law that have been a model for the world for centuries. Ideas that can be mocked, but not marred.

[We] must gain the high ground, and survey the damage. And the thing about gaining the high ground is from up there you can see beyond the damage, too. You can see everything. Everything that is good and decent.

That is the job before us – to get through this, and beyond it. And you’re just the ones to take us there.

Conclusion

Thank you, Senator Flake, for your speech and your challenge to us all.

=======================================

[1] Senator Jeff Flake’s Courageous Defense of American Values and Democracy, dwkcommentaries.com (Nov. 6, 2017).

[2] Senator Jeff Flake Condemns President Trump’s “Fake News” Tirades, dwkcommentaries.com (Jan. 20, 2018).

[3] Press Release, Flake Delivers Class Day Speech at Harvard Law School (May 23, 2018).