PACKING THE COURT IS AS AMERICAN AS THE "FOUNDING FATHERS!"

By Edwin Cooney

As difficult as it may be to imagine, on Monday, September 17th, 1787, the day the Constitution was adopted for presentation to the thirteen states, there was no “liberalism” or “conservatism” in our body politic. Hence, neither Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats, nor Republicans can legitimately deny their guilt in the historical observation that when it comes to the American judiciary and the application of constitutional law, political practicality has historically prevailed over either patriotism or objectivity.

First, the Federalist System consisting of the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary branches was created before the thirteen colonies ratified the Constitution. There were no political parties in existence to apply their principles. Thus, you have the ideal of nonpartisans serving on all courts. This reality enables every Conservative's concept of "original intent” even as the new document described that judges would be appointed for a lifetime so that they might avoid outside pressures when it came to making judgments.

Within the next decade, however, Federalists led by Alexander Hamilton and Democratic Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were openly competing with their political opponents to influence decisions made by the United States Supreme Court and other courts both state and federal.

Additionally, millions of Americans believe that the Constitution specifies the number of judges on the Supreme Court when in fact it makes no such provision. This assumption enables too many people to believe that Roosevelt was violating the Constitution by adding judges to the court. By not even consulting his vice president, the cabinet or the congressional leadership before announcing his proposed judicial reform in 1937, FDR appeared devious and thus seemed guilty of "packing" the Supreme Court. Actually, he was very, very far from being the first president to do so.

When John Adams left office in 1801, he deliberately asked his outgoing Secretary of State John Marshall to accept appointment as a Federalist to the Supreme Court. Marshall, who often quarreled with his cousin, incoming president Thomas Jefferson, accepted the appointment and, since there was no way except through impeachment that Marshall could be removed by Jefferson's Democratic Republicans, he was able to serve for 34 years and establish the doctrine of Judicial Review thus empowering the Supreme Court to judge the legitimacy of law under the Constitution. Every fifth or sixth grade American history book referred to this act by John Adams, a Founding Father, as Adams' “Midnight Appointments.”

(Note: There’s an irony to the story that FDR sought to pack the Supreme Court since he is the only president to have appointed a justice who was not of his party to head the Supreme Court. In June of 1941 when Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes retired, President Roosevelt appointed Harlan Fisk Stone as Chief Justice of the United States. Calvin Coolidge originally nominated Stone as an Associate Justice in January 1925.)

The heart of the modern day quarrel between Conservatives and Liberals is whether the court ought to interpret laws as written by the Founders or whether the justices ought to interpret laws according to additional amendments existing in compliance with conditions since the Civil War. Liberals generally insist that the Constitution as a living document should reflect modern conditions and sensitivities. Conservatives insist that, in contrast to its original purpose, the Supreme Court has become a legislative body which creates rather than properly interprets laws.

Since our political leadership has never sought a way of getting around this conflict, everyone, from president to voter, is to a considerable extent a victim of legal and cultural gridlock.

Republicans and Conservatives, who since FDR's day have been so self-righteous about “court packing," have indulged in that very practice twice now in the last four years because they've possessed the political and circumstantial advantage to do so. Not until Barack Obama did the Congress deny a sitting president the right to have a nominee to the Supreme Court's career and credentials considered by the United States Senate under the constitution's advise and consent provision. This political season, because they possess the situational and political advantage, they have decided to forego the right of the people to influence the nomination of a new justice through a possible newly elected president. Thus, so much for the right of the people!

So, what must we do to untie this historical ideological and political knot?

First, we must recognize that neither Republicans, Conservatives, Democrats, nor Liberals, or even the purely spiritual among us, are above politics.

Second, this being the case, we are in a transitional period between recognition of our dilemma and its legitimate alteration or correction.

Third, in the meantime, we must agree on the principles and conditions behind whatever constitutional amendment we invite the states to ratify. Among these should be the end of lifetime appointments to the entire judiciary. Also, the terms of justices should be set at nine years. That could conceivably allow every sitting president to nominate a judge to the Supreme Court during the first and third years of his or her presidential term. 

Another provision should probably assert the number of justices to serve at any time on the court.

 

Finally, since the only legitimate way of managing the court is the present system, we have no other alternative than to openly pack and expand the Supreme Court. Keep in mind that, under prevailing circumstances, packing the Supreme Court is perfectly lawful, practical, and necessary.

I'm convinced that we do the greatest damage to ourselves when we're in denial of what's real!

In the wake of recent GOP attitudes and actions, if I were Joe Biden, I would pack the court as full of Liberals as I possibly could!

So, go to it, Joe!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE WORLD SERIES - 1920 STYLE

By Edwin Cooney

I'm forever writing about the significance of years in history! The year 1920 was truly one of those transitional years marking significant change in politics: Woodrow Wilson, the scholarly president crippled by a stroke and embittered by he defeat of his League of Nations in the U.S. Senate, was leaving office; women with their first vote, were a big boost to Ohio Senator Warren Harding's political ambition; and baseball learned in September of that year that the 1919 White Sox had thrown the World Series to the Cincinnati Reds. "Say it ain't so, Joe," one young fan is said to have shouted to Joe Jackson, the Sox's biggest star, outside of a Chicago courthouse. Unfortunately, it was so and the new baseball commissioner, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, would suspend Jackson and seven of his teammates from major league baseball for life. Then along came the 1920 World Series.  

Officially, the 1920 World Series was between the Cleveland Indians and the Brooklyn Dodgers. However, baseball back then was as personal as it was professional. In fact, although there certainly was both form and structure to baseball, there was minimal formality about it. Both teams were known to their fans as the Cleveland Indians and the Brooklyn Robbins. Sure, “the Indians” was in fact their official name, but they were called Indians in honor of a former major league player, Louis Sockalexis, who played for the old Cleveland Spiders of the 1890s. Louis Sockalexis was a Penobscot Indian from Old Town, Maine whose brilliant career was rapidly ruined by alcohol after only about 94 games between 1897 and 1899. Sockalexis, a five foot eight left-handed batter, in just 94 games had 115 hits including twelve doubles, eight triples, three home runs, 65 rbi’s, a .315 batting average, an on-base percentage of .366, and a slugging percentage of .414. He was reported to have hurled a baseball from a water tower on Oak Hill Island on the Indian reservation territory of Old Town, Maine that hit the smoke stack of the Jordan, Maine lumber mill which was three-quarters of a mile away. Sockalexis was released by the Cleveland Spiders after just seven games of the 1899 season, the last year the Spiders existed in the National League. Louis Sockalexis died an alcoholic on December 24th, 1914 at the age of 43. A year or so after that, the Cleveland Naps needed a new name. There was a contest and the winning name, "The Cleveland Indians,” was suggested by a fan who remembered the incredible rookie of 1897.

As for the Brooklyn Dodgers (now the Los Angeles Dodgers) who may be in this week's fall classic, they were then called "The Brooklyn Robins" after their "lovable" manager Wilbert Robinson.  He was known by his players and fans alike as "Uncle Robby.” Uncle Robby commanded respect, but he was also loved by his players. A former major league catcher, Uncle Robby had insisted over the years that he could catch a baseball dropped from an airplane. One day in 1917 during spring training, a newspaper man went up in an airplane as Uncle Robby circled with his catchers' mitt about 500 feet below. The only problem was that the newspaper man was armed with a grapefruit rather than a baseball. Other than knocking Uncle Robby on his bottom and spraying him with grapefruit juice there was no harm and little achieved except for a lot of laughs at Uncle Robby's expense. My guess is that you'll recognize the name of the ballplayer who is said to have arranged the prank on his manager. It was Charles Dillon (Casey) Stengel, a former dental student from Kansas City, Missouri. Uncle Robby later conceded that he might have been killed had it been a real baseball.

The year 1920 marked the Robins' second series and the first for the Indians. The two clubs were tied two games apiece on Sunday, October 10th at Cleveland's League Park. (Note: it was one of the last 5 out of 9 World Series that would ever be played.) Three extraordinary events happened that Sunday afternoon. First, Indian right-fielder Elmer Smith hit the first ever World Series grand slam home run in the first inning giving the Indians a four to nothing lead. In the fourth inning, starter Jim Bagby smacked a three run homer to make the score 7 zip. (Note that Bagby's homer was the first home run hit by a pitcher in World Series competition.)  

However, the really dramatic history was made that day in the top of the fifth inning when Robbins second baseman Pete Kilduff began the inning with a single. Then, catcher Otto Miller followed with another single. With two men on and no one out, Uncle Robby sent pitcher Clarence Mitchell to the plate and decided to maximize a possible run-scoring opportunity by a hit and run play. Thus, as the Indians' Jim Bagby delivered his pitch to Mitchell, Kilduff took off for third and Miller dashed for second. Next came the crack of Mitchell's bat and a screaming line drive headed for second base. Bill Wambsganss dove to his right grabbing the ball before it hit the ground which put the batter out. Scrambling to his feet, Wambsganss stepped on second which eliminated Kilduff who was nearing third base. Next, Bill Wambsganss cocked his arm to throw the ball back to first, but shortstop Joe Sewell yelled for Wambsganss to tag Otto Miller. Wambsganss did just that resulting in an unassisted triple play. The crowd of 24,884 was silent for about ten seconds followed by thunderous cheers and Bill Wambsganss, the son of a Lutheran minister, became almost God-like in Cleveland, Ohio. The series ended two days later on Columbus Day as player manager Tris Speaker (known during his playing career as the “Gray Eagle”) triumphed over Uncle Robby's Robins. Both managers would, in years to come, be elected to baseball's Hall of Fame — Uncle Robby as a manager and Tris Speaker as an excellent center fielder and 300 plus hitter.

World Series glory for the Cleveland Indians hopefully eased the pain for the players who all suffered when their shortstop Ray Chapman became the first player to be killed on a professional baseball diamond. It happened the previous August 16th against the Yankees at the Polo Grounds in New York in the fifth inning of the game. Chapman, who often crowded home plate to reach pitches that might have been too outside of the plate to reach easily, was facing Carl Mays. The pitch bounced off Chapman's left temple back to Mays who tossed it to first baseman Wally Pipp. Chapman lay on his back bleeding from his ears. After a few minutes, with the assistance of a doctor from the stands, Ray Chapman started for the Indians clubhouse. He collapsed at second base and was carried the rest of the way. There, he again regained consciousness. While awake, he absolved Karl Mays of any blame for the incident. (Ray Chapman may have been the only one to absolve Mays; players, writers and most certainly fans piled blame on the beleaguered pitcher.) Taken to St. Lawrence Hospital, Raymond Johnson  Chapman died some 12 hours later.

Hence, tragedy stalked the 1920 baseball season just as it does during this 2020 season. Fundamentally the same, this old and beloved game of ours serves the same need and gives the same gift as it gave a century ago.

Uncle Robby, Tris Speaker, Pete Kilduff, Otto Miller, Clarence Mitchell, Bill Wambsganss, and, of course, Ray Chapman and Louis Sockalexis are all an unforgettable part of our past just as time will make the stars of our day.

Baseball in 2020 will become an ancient but cherished memory sooner than most of us realize. That's why we must enjoy it while we may!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY 

“OKAY, MAC, MAKE YOUR CASE!"

By Edwin Cooney

Sixty years ago this November 8th, Jack Kennedy, by the thinnest of margins, satisfied the American people that the United States was significantly behind the Soviets in the space race and that there was a significant missile gap to the advantage of the Soviets. Both circumstances  required the application of young, vigorous, and progressive leadership that would  "get America moving again!" John Fitzgerald Kennedy prevailed in that election only by approximately 112,000 popular votes and 303 to 219 votes in the Electoral College. For the next 1,036 days, Americans lived in Jacqueline Kennedy's "Camelot."

In 1964, Lyndon B. Johnson adequately demonstrated to a bereaved public that his version of national security and prosperity was superior to Barry Goldwater's risky adventures in international games of “stick 'em up” with the Soviets and the conservative brand of free market government hands-off advocated by right-wing Republicans. Hence, Lyndon and Lady Bird Johnson were free to build their "Great Society."

By November 5th, 1968, former Vice President Richard M. Nixon had proved to a sufficient plurality of voters that he could and would follow the wishes of the “silent majority" to bring law and order here at home and "peace with honor" to the Vietnam conflict, thus paving his way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Jimmy Carter in 1976 promised you and me that, as an outsider, he could bring about a sufficient amount of fresh air to blow off the stale atmosphere of corrupt politics pervading throughout Washington D.C.

Ronald Reagan proved by November 6th, 1984 that Jimmy Carter's "malaise" was a thing of the far distant past and that it was now "morning in America.” Thus, the genial president won every state but Walter Mondale's Minnesota even taking traditionally Democratic Massachusetts which had voted for Senator George McGovern in 1972.

George H. W. Bush, by November 8th, 1988, promised that from his lips there would be no new taxes, that school children would always be free to salute the flag in their classrooms, that Boston Harbor wouldn't be nearly as polluted under his leadership, that no furloughed black prisoner would invade their homes, and that with his experiences as an ambassador and as CIA Director, he could bargain more effectively with the Soviet Union than could Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis.

The next four presidential candidates, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, demonstrated that, as the outs, they were superior to the ins!

As for 2020, while it's still possible for President Trump to prevail, he appears to be interested in only one thing: his personal success. He shows little empathy for his fellow Republicans as they seek to retain their seats in the House, Senate, or other offices.

Additionally, how many voters, beyond those already committed to him, can he expect to draw to his rallies, be they at the White House or elsewhere? Even if the president is personally non-contagious, how many other people who largely share the president's recklessness toward the disease might be at a Trump rally? Also, what effect will President Trump's insistence on not engaging in a virtual debate affect the way he's perceived during the next three weeks?

As for the values or priorities the president offers, he has put himself in a position to favor the people’s economic security, rather than their personal safety in the wake of Covid-19. By questioning the integrity of the voting public, he is undermining that ever fragile link between a popular leader and his or her constituency. After all, as essential as the economy may be, people worry more about the health of their friends and their families as well as the legitimacy of their ballots.  

As for former Vice President Biden, I'm convinced he can sew up his case by clearly asserting both publicly and preferably in front of Mr. Trump: Mr. President, this election is not about me or about you! It's about the future welfare of the American people.

Somehow and in some way, President Trump needs to demonstrate to the public that our national welfare, as stated in the Preamble of our  Constitution, is as important to him as his personal political success. Finally, since the president has had four years to offer a counterproposal to "Obamacare" but has not done so, what proposed legislation will he offer that would cover pre-existing conditions and sufficiently lower the costs of drugs and other health-oriented services? 

Joe Biden, who also must explain his own set of policy inconsistencies and political vagaries, goes into the final three weeks with two decided advantages: he’s much more personally likable and his political success is truly about our own well-being rather than about his!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

EDWIN COONEY