This has been a momentous week for our politics.  Politicians on both sides like to give lip service to platitudes about how we have free elections in America and peaceful transfers of power no matter who is victorious.  Very high-minded rhetoric.  The problem is that on Friday night last, the false veil of civility was pulled back to expose the ugly reality.  Donald Trump had a rally scheduled on a college campus in Chicago.  Predictably, the college faculty called for the event to be cancelled, because leftists are in favor of free speech only when they are speaking.  A crowd of violent protesters, perhaps channeling the 1968 Democrat Convention, stormed the arena and forced the cancellation of the event.  The protesters, by all accounts, were a rent-a-mob put together by such anti-democratic groups as Occupy Wall Street, anarchists, F**K The Police, Black Lives Matter, and Moveon.org, a group funded by George Soros (more about him later).  These disparate malcontents were organized by functionaries from the Bernie Sanders campaign.  The night turned into hours of news coverage; continuous loops of the same antics over and over again.  I had to suffer through an hour of Greta (who’s supposed to be a lawyer) on Fox News, trying to compare Trump’s First Amendment rights against those of a roiling mob.  Hey Greta, this had nothing to do with the First Amendment, and everything to do with those who revile the Constitution and who seek to destroy America in favor of their Marxist Utopia.  Bernie Sanders accused Trump of provoking violence.  There is one candidate in this cycle who constantly calls for a “political revolution,” his name is Bernie Sanders.   A mob of revolutionaries starts a fight that sends cops to the hospital, but we can’t blame Bernie.   Republican candidates also suggested that Trump’s own conduct was to blame.  I thought this argument was unfair, and I sincerely tried to regard Trump as a victim,  but later in the week, Trump, shortly after denouncing those who compared his rallies to Nazi rallies, announced that, if he falls short of delegates and isn’t given the nomination anyway, “there will be riots.”  I can only hope that his rioters don’t wear brown shirts.

Which brings us to the current state of affairs.  Trump won Florida and Rubio is out.  Kasich won Ohio, he can’t win, but he’s not going away.  We are confronted by the reality that there is one, and only one, candidate who can deny Donald Trump the necessary delegates and win the required number of delegates himself – Ted Cruz.  This is the last call for sanity, the last chance to choose a consistent conservative instead of – who knows what.  In 1980, Jimmy Carter was roundly ridiculed for saying that he had been discussing nuclear proliferation with his 12 year old daughter.  Yesterday, Trump assured us that he is discussing foreign policy with himself, which is sufficient because “I have a very good brain.”  I’m not sure which one is worse.  The Republican Establishment has a big problem.  Trump and Cruz have the vast majority of the convention delegates, but they don’t want Trump and they don’t want Cruz.  Hence, the reason why Kasich is still hanging around.  He can’t win, but maybe he can keep both Trump and Cruz from garnering the 1237 delegates they need to be nominated.  If that happens, then the Establishment, you know, that group that denies it exists, yet will stop at nothing to continue with crooked business as usual, may yet get to nominate another smiling, good loser, as our Republican candidate.  Ted Cruz likes to call it “the Washington Cartel.”  You doubt me?  Let’s get back to George Soros.  Soros belongs to that, unfortunately not rare, group of fabulously wealthy people who are vehemently anti-capitalist.  Capitalism permitted them to accumulate their wealth, but they don’t like it.  I can’t explain why that is, don’t blame me, I’m not a psychiatrist.  Let’s call these folks the billionaire bolsheviks.  George Soros is the brains and the checkbook behind Il Duce Obama, sharing Obama’s desire to “fundamentally transform America,” presumably into the socialist worker’s paradise that those in the Soviet Union enjoyed so much that they abolished the Soviet Union.  Now, Soros is backing Hillary Clinton, so that she can finish the destruction of America that Il Duce began, but he’s also hedging his bets.  Taking a page from that well known Washington outsider, Donald Trump, Soros believes in buying politicians on both sides, just in case.  They say money talks.  Soros gave money to a PAC supporting Jeb Bush.  With Bush out of the picture,  Soros is now sending money to  a PAC called New Day for America, which is the PAC supporting John Kasich.  But the Establishment doesn’t exist, right?  Sure, just like, “there’s no such thing as the Mafia.”  Anyway you slice it, there are forces at work seeking to frustrate the desires of the vast majority of voters for an anti-establishment candidate.  Last call for sanity.  Time to get behind Ted Cruz.

Yesterday I had to go to a government office in Newark to drop off some files.  Normally when I do this, I am there less than half an hour and it costs $4 to park in a nearby lot.  When I arrived yesterday, a large sign announced “Event Parking $20.”  When I inquired what event was going on in Newark at 10:30 am on a Thursday, I was told, “the circus is in town.”  Sadly, hearing the word “circus,” made me think of the ongoing political primaries.  On the Republican side, last week we were treated to a festival of gratuitous insults.  Donald Trump continued his popular “Little Marco” and “Lying Ted” act, while at the same time, insisting that he plans to be more presidential than any President other than Lincoln, but not until some time in the future.  He capped it off after the Tuesday primaries with an hour-long oration at one of his golf clubs, during which he displayed raw meat.  Even Lincoln never did that.  For his part, Marco Rubio spent his time yelling back at Trump, even suggesting that Trump’s presidential bid should be curtailed due to insufficiently proportioned genitals; a charge which Trump vehemently, not to mention vulgarly, denied.  Not the mark of a true statesman, but apparently Rubio is very popular in Puerto Rico.  Meanwhile, John Kasich pretty much admitted that he’ll never get  the number of delegates needed for the nomination, but allowed as how he still might win anyway.  (As an aside, I really thought he might be the nominee late last year, but not in the fashion he’s suggesting).  At the last debate, Kasich still had that puzzled look on his face, like a tourist who got off the bus at the wrong stop and now can’t find his way back to his hotel, even though his father was a mailman.  Throughout this fray, Ted Cruz stood up there and tried to turn the subject back to more mundane issues, such the threat from North Korea and Trump’s actual record, which includes contributions to Hillary Clinton.  This provoked several more “Lying Ted’s” from Trump and hoarse yelling from Rubio.  I’m glad Cruz at least tried to inject something substantive into the discourse, but it mostly reminded me of Matthew 7:6,  “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.”  This week, they’re still trying to call Cruz a liar, because some anonymous volunteer in his campaign sent an email to Hawaii which announced that CNN had reported that Rubio might withdraw before the Florida primary.  CNN had indeed reported just that.  If the argument is that CNN lies about Republicans all the time, and anyone who repeats their reports is an aider and abettor, I can’t say I disagree with that.  All in all, a well-rounded week of insanity.  The Democrat ring of this circus was no less zany.  On Monday, a poll had  Hillary Clinton 27 points ahead of Bernie Sanders in Michigan.  On Tuesday, Sanders won the Michigan primary.  No problem for Hillary though, since the Democrat rules have the game fixed in her favor; no matter how Democrats vote, she still wins.  Hillary’s act fits more in a carnival sideshow than in a circus proper.  She’s doing her impression of Little Egypt, “She walks, she talks (lies mostly), she crawls on her belly like a reptile.”  She could be a high wire act, though, walking the tightrope between her criminal past and forced devotion to Obama on one side, and the FBI waiting with handcuffs on the other.  Then there was the Democrat debate on Univision.  Hillary was asked by Jorge Ramos no less (and there is no less), whether she would drop out should she be indicted.  She became very indignant, declaring, “That’s not going to happen.”  Maybe she knows something we don’t know.  In any event, both she and Bernie Sanders took the pledge, promising that, despite that pesky oath they have to take on January 20, as President, they would never, ever dare to enforce the laws of the United States of America and deport somebody who comes here illegally, or is that undocumentedly?  Is there such a thing as anticipatory impeachment?  And, of course, Bernie Sanders is a perfect circus performer.  I could totally see him as the geek, standing outside a tent to stir up the crowd, then biting the heads off chickens.  If you think any of this is funny, please keep in mind that one of these clowns is liable to be the President of the United States next year.  We’d all be a lot better off if that person is Ted Cruz.  Failing that, at least Trump knows how to turn the bull into steaks, Hillary just knows how to throw it.

Recently, we have been treated to, or saddled with, extensive debate about whether the FBI or Apple should win the fight over whether the government may compel Apple to create a means of cracking the encryption on its iMessage technology.  Proponents of the government side argue national security and other law enforcement concerns.  The Apple proponents (some of whom seem to be part of an Apple cult) complain about privacy breaches and individual liberty.  I come at this issue as a true hybrid.   When I was a prosecutor, I was involved in numerous investigations which included electronic surveillance, and countless investigations involving searches of persons, homes and vehicles.  At the same time, I also am a staunch believer in individual rights and an even stauncher believer that, left to its own devices, government would trample individual liberties.  This issue crops up in the wake of the San Bernardino terrorist shootings.  San Bernardino Islamic terrorist Farook had an iPhone.  Apple iPhones include a feature called iMessage, which permits messages to be sent from one Apple device to another.  These messages are encrypted to the degree that only the sender and the receiver can decrypt them.  Farook’s phone may contain such messages related to his terrorist activities.  Not surprisingly, the FBI wants to know what’s in the phone, but after the input of a certain number of combinations of potential passwords, the phone automatically wipes out all the information.  Apple says it doesn’t have a means of cracking the phone.  A court has order Apple to create a way to crack it.  Apple doesn’t want to do it.  The Apple-FBI fight has generated considerable heat, but considerably less light.  I submit that the solution requires us to go back to fundamentals, that is, to the supreme law of the land, the Constitution.  One of the main purposes of the Bill of Rights was the protection of privacy.  The Fourth Amendment requires search warrants, based on probable cause, before the government may invade your privacy.  The touchstone is reasonableness.  Fourth Amendment protections were applied to electronic communications (telephone calls) almost 50 years ago.  Since even the privacy of one’s home may be breached with a warrant, it is logical to conclude that a telephone enjoys no greater protection.  That principle is clear.  The way to implement it is not.  In 1994, Congress enacted the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), the purpose of which was to require “telecommunications carriers” to upgrade their systems to make it possible for them to comply with court orders for electronic surveillance.  CALEA gave law enforcement access to digital communications technologies.  Apple no doubt would argue that it is not a carrier, but only a manufacturer of equipment.  Well, yes and no.  Apple makes the phones, sure.  However, a telecommunications carrier is an entity which is engaged in the transmission of electronic communications to the public for a fee.  With iMessage, Apple arguably does those things.  In any event, this type of electronic messaging was not included in CALEA in 1994 because there was no sign of criminal use of electronic messaging.  Criminals apparently have caught up with this technology.  Maybe the law needs to be changed.  As for decryption, CALEA does not require carriers to decrypt or to ensure that the government may decrypt, “unless the encryption was provided by the carrier and the carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt the communication.”  This would seem to come down on Apple’s side, because they say they don’t possess the information necessary to decrypt.  The precise issue presented by the FBI-Apple fight doesn’t seem to fit neatly into existing law.  At the end of the day, you’d think a settlement would be possible, but that’s not an easy task either.  Apple doesn’t want to create a technology that would open the floodgates to an untold number of court orders for iPhone information.  For its part, even if Apple agreed to do so, the FBI understandably  doesn’t want to send the phone to Apple to get it opened, and rely on Apple to give it the information.  Even when a phone is tapped, the phone company simply makes possible the receipt of the contents of communications by law enforcement.  The phone company doesn’t obtain the content and send it to law enforcement.  For obvious reasons, the FBI doesn’t want Apple to have access to information which may affect national security.  There is no easy solution to this mess.  Here’s a suggestion.  Since Apple  manufactures its iPhones in China, the Chinese no doubt have already engineered the means to defeat the encryption.  Why not have the FBI ask the Chinese what’s on Farook’s phone.  They probably know already.

One post-debate observation before I close.  Lord save us from billionaires.

I often have observed that real political journalism died the day that Bill Clinton successfully substituted the word “spin” for what previously had been recognized simply as a “lie.”  I don’t suggest, mind you, that Bill Clinton is responsible for the word spin.  That term goes back to the days of sailing ships, when sailors would tell tall tales while they were working on ropes.  As best I can tell, the political connotation of the term “spin” dates to October of 1984, when members of the Reagan campaign used a hotel ballroom to discuss debate performances with the media; those Reagan supporters then being dubbed “the spin patrol.”  Since then, the notion of “spin rooms” filled with “spinmeisters” has come into common usage.  However, the point is, that until Bill Clinton came along, everybody understood that the “spin” and the truth were two different things.  Bill Clinton changed all that.  He inaugurated what I like to call, “a movable truth.”  That is, what was offered as the truth one day might change over time as events transpired; the truth thereupon being transformed from a statement in conformity with facts or reality, to whatever seemed to be politically expedient at the moment.  Which is not to say that Bill Clinton was the first President to lie, far from it.   After all, in the 16th Century, Machiavelli, perhaps anticipating the 1955 hit by The Platters, told us that a leader must be a great pretender and a dissembler.  Sometimes there’s a good reason to lie.  Eisenhower denied we were making U2 flights over Russia in 1960.  Kennedy denied we were planning to invade Cuba in 1961.  LBJ was so accomplished as a liar, that his nickname in college was “Bull Johnson.”  This was not because he raised cattle.  President Truman said of Nixon, “There is a man who will never tell the truth when a simple lie will do.”  This may be what prompted Jimmy Carter to vow, “I’ll never lie to you.”  Since the Carter presidency was an abject failure, maybe the truth isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.  But here’s the thing.  When LBJ lied, the media duly reported that he had “a credibility gap.”  The media, and the public, recognized that they were not being told the truth, and both concluded that that this was a bad thing which was unbecoming for a chief executive.  Not any more.  Bill Clinton told us that what was true depended on what your definition “of what the word ‘is’ is.”  Then, when he was exposed as a baldfaced liar, the media told us that it really didn’t matter anyhow.  Barack Obama?  Where do I begin?  “I was a law professor.”  “I’m not a socialist.”  “You can keep your insurance.”  “You can keep your doctor.”  “Your premiums will go down $2500.”  Need I continue?  All lies, but it didn’t matter.  There are exceptions.  Apparently, “Bush lied, and people died.”  However, Obama and Hillary Clinton lied, and people in Benghazi died … and don’t bother us with the facts.  And, what about Hillary Clinton?  She lied to make her husband President.  She lied to keep her husband President.  She defamed the myriad women who reported her husband’s sexual abuse of them.  She lied about her billing records.  She lied about her investments.  She lied about Benghazi.  She lied about the Clinton Foundation.  She lied about her email server.  And because of all that, she’s now the leading Democrat candidate to be the next President.  Isn’t it time?  Time for what, a lying President?  No it’s not. (See above).

I guess the moral of this story is that a lie is only a bad thing is you’re a Republican, and are somehow afflicted with the unnatural desire to be told the truth.  Which brings us to last night’s Republican debate.  Ted Cruz said Rubio lied.  Donald Trump said Cruz lied.  Both Cruz and Rubio said Trump lied.  Ben Carson said, “Won’t someone please accuse me of lying?”  Kasich said – well, does it really matter?  Truth be told, Rubio lied in two languages.  Trump changes his story with stunning regularity, and when Cruz repeats actual things Trump has said, Trump calls Cruz a “liar.”  Then the Cruz campaign stoked the liar fire with the Photoshopped picture of Rubio and the claims about Rubio which forced Cruz’s communications director to resign.  Not his finest hour.  Bottom line, Cruz isn’t lying, but in the crazy world of politics in 2016, it doesn’t seem to matter.  Maybe the public has become so jaded that it no longer expects to hear the truth.  Maybe public service has ceased being a public trust.  If so, that’s discouraging.  After all, it was no less an authority than Donald Trump who recently proclaimed,  “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters.”  Maybe he’s right.  Would I lie?

Antonin Scalia (1936-2016)

This week we mourn the passing of a legal giant whose like may never be seen again.  Antonin Scalia was the living embodiment of the American Dream.  Born in Trenton, he approached every aspect of his life with a single goal – excellence.  He never disappointed.  As a Boy Scout – Order of the Arrow, scouting’s national honor society.  High School – first in his class and valedictorian.  Georgetown University – Summa Cum Laude  and valedictorian.   Harvard Law School – Magna Cum Laude.  Appointed to the Supreme Court in 1986 by Ronald Reagan  (you remember him, that other conservative who was too dangerous to be elected), Justice Scalia was an originalist, a term which is misunderstood by those who don’t know better, and purposely derided by those who know full well what it means and are pushing their agenda.  Simplistic explanations will tell you that an originalist interprets the Constitution in terms of what it theoretically meant in 1787, while more enlightened jurists recognize that the Constitution is a “living document” which must change to suit modern society.  That’s nonsense.  Much of constitutional law is based on that which is reasonable.  The originalist view is not extreme, it’s reasonable.  The Founders who wrote the Constitution argued for months about what it should say and what the words meant.  When completed and ratified, the various provisions of the Constitution meant what they said and said what they meant.  And the Founders didn’t lock America into an 18th Century vision of what our government must be.  They gave us Article Five, which provides two methods of amending the Constitution.  We’ve accomplished that 27 times since 1787.  The “living document” adherents will tell you that the words of those 18th Century men couldn’t possibly be applied to modern problems.  Don’t believe it.  The Fourth Amendment was written in 1791, and its words have never been amended.  The words of those old white men have successfully been interpreted to protect the rights of every racial and ethnic minority, and have tackled such issues as telephone and internet privacy and infrared imaging.  The truth is that we don’t have to arbitrarily change or ignore the words of the Constitution to fit the times.  Originalists understand that the document is alive.  It’s the liberals who want to kill it; for our own good, of course.  You see, Justice Scalia strictly adhered to the separation of powers set forth in the Constitution.  Each branch of the government has a defined scope of authority.  Scalia often warned that it was the job of the Legislature to say what the law is, and that discordant social issues should not be decided by nine judges in black robes.  Not a bad idea.  Instead, we have a chief executive (who fancies himself a constitutional law teacher) who warns us he has “a pen and a phone” and will rule by decree when it suits him.  Instead of a pen and a phone, maybe he should have the Constitution.  Which brings us to the politics.  No sooner was it announced that Justice Scalia had passed, than the political wheels began turning.  Now, we are told, there will be a battle over the appointment of his replacement.  Il Duce Obama hasn’t made a nomination yet, and already the media has suggested that, if Obama doesn’t get exactly what he wants, it’s due to racial discrimination.  It’s yet another case where facts and truth are not important.  Presidents have made 160 Supreme Court nominations.  Only 124 Justices have been confirmed.  That means that 36 of the nominees of non-minority Presidents have been unsuccessful.  Meanwhile Obama is two for two.  No matter.  No Justice nominated in an election year has been approved in nearly 80 years.  No matter.  The vile and repugnant Chuck Schumer  says we must approve whoever Obama nominates; it’s the Constitution, you see.  The same Chuck Schumer who, in 2007, declared that no George Bush Court nominee should be confirmed in the last two years of his term.  No matter.  Obama himself, as a Senator in 2006, sought to filibuster Justice Alito.  In another teachable moment, Obama, that noted constitutional scholar, taught us that the Senate must advise and consent.  He said the Senate must examine a nominee’s philosophy, ideology and record, and not just consider whether the nominee has the intellectual capacity to serve.  Yesterday, the White House announced that Obama “now regrets” making such comments.  He doesn’t regret that he said and meant every word, he only regrets that we remembered.  Obama has a perfect right to nominate, and the Senate has a perfect right to decide that what’s best for the nation is to wait till after the election to consider any nominee.  And when Senator Schumer complains of Republican obstruction, maybe someone will ask him to explain why the Harry Reid led Senate practically closed down for six years, failing to consider hundreds of bills passed by the House of Representatives.  No need for a battle.  The Senate should just say “No.”  Rest in peace, Justice Scalia.  You will be sorely missed.